It's not hard at all to write a woman positive headline. The fact of the matter is that we live in a rapist apologist culture. We are constantly looking for ways to delegitimize rape victims. It is part of the way that we discipline womens sexuality. "Good girls" are the only ones that really get raped, everyone else gets what they were looking for by putting themselves in situations that are not seen as above reproach. This makes womnens bodies more available to men and violence.

::headdesk::

An article about rape that doesn't even mention the perpetrators?

Sometimes I just give up.

Oh, so all I have to do to stop rape is "fight back" or "say 'no'"? Gee, thanks for your pearls of wisdom, 10News.

This style of "reporting" totally validates the laziness of this country. If men are out committing horrible acts of violence, our culture may be forced to do something to stop them. (After all, you can bet your ass there would be community action out in full force if there were drug dealers or prostitutes roaming the streets.) If some vague Bad Things (after all, they never say rape) *are happening* to women, it's more passive and people won't be forced to act. No committees, no petitions, no pressure on cops-- just judgments.

Here's the email I just sent to webstaff@10news.com (you can mail them too!)

"Dear 10news Staff,

I'm writing to comment on your story here:
http://www.10news.com/news/17024176/detail.html?rss=sand&psp=news

Your headline blames young women for being raped. Rape is caused by *rapists*, not young women drinking. Even in your source story from the San Diego Union-Tribune, Verna Griffin-Tabor, executive director of the Center for Community Solutions, which runs rape crisis centers in the county said, “There's so much guilt and shame, and it's one of those crimes where people blame the victim. We should be asking what would drive someone to commit such a crime, rather than ask what was she wearing and what was she drinking.” Curiously, all of that was left out of your story.

Would it have been so much harder to title your story, "More Rapes Linked to Young Men Who Prey On Intoxicated Friends"? Shame on you for adding to the culture of guilt, shame and victim-blaming that enables rapists to keep doing what they do because "she was asking for it" or "she should have known better".

The sad part is, this type of news coverage is all too familiar. It reminds me of a quote from our campus police spokesperson about a girl who got gang raped. She was wandering outside after a football game and she had been drinking. He said... and I quote: "I think alcohol played a huge role in this, and I think [students] need to be more responsible with their drinking. They cannot drink to the extent to where they don't remember things or know who they are with."

By the way-- the story about the rape was not even printed in the campus newspaper--we found out about it because they only put the story on the online version.

Just called the news desk. For what it's worth, the gentleman that answered the phone sounded genuinely concerned. Maybe we'll actually see an update or something---dare I hope for retraction and explanation/apology?

That would be refreshing.

This issue reminds me of an incident that, though somewhat different, follows a similar pattern. I was strongly annoyed the other day when this guy lamented over his ex-girlfriend who felt guilty after having sex with him during their relationship (he was her first time) for religious reasons. He claims she'd usually tell him ahead of time, "I don't want to go all the way." Though once they started making out, he'd automatically push for intercourse and usually succeed.

He said, "But She didn't tell me to stop during." I feel if he really respected her, he'd stand by her wishes from from before the intimate session had started, so she wouldn't feel guilty again after. Although he claims she enjoyed having sex, once they were having it.

Now, I'm by no means preaching against sexual relations of any type, but this seems at least a little blurry to me, just because of her blatant statements of her intent ahead of the intimate session. The guy was insinuating she was directly responsible for the intercourse (due to not 'restraining' him) that later gave her the guilt feelings, as if he wasn't the one to initiate it.

Yeah, eve23, not even in the same ballpark. No offense.

Let's not even stop at the drinking binges! How about, "More rapes linked to women who walk outside (unaccompanied by a male relative)." How 'bout that?

I wonder what the news media would make of young men being gang raped by each other during their drinking binges, would the victims still be blamed or would it just be a case of "boys will be boys".

I'm really pissed at this, that we're living in fucking 2008 and yet it's STILL the woman's fault if something bad happens to her. That we have to walk a tight rope or else we'll be punished for stepping out of line. It's bullshit. Agggrh!

If we don't know that the women are drinking, how are we supposed to make ourselves feel better about because, after all, "the whores had it coming?"

If we don't know that the women are drinking, how are we supposed to make ourselves feel better about it because, after all, "the whores had it coming?"

JKayOh,

I would say that's totally in the same ballpark, actually.

He pushed for intercourse after she said "no" (and quite possibly gave no other positive signals)? Rape...

The language used in that article is unbelievable. The more examples I see of such female-blaming diction and tone, the more I'm astonished at its continued existence. We'll see if there's a response to what I hope has been of deluge of communication. Did my part!

Having a few too many drinks, should not be seen as a invitation to rape. It a pretty f-ed up person who would take advantage of someone in that situation. I know when I was in college you looked out for your friends. If you came together you left together, and made sure your drunken friend got back home safe. Look out for your friends! There's too many sickos out there.

Nina,

I understand and believe that rape is rape NO MATTER WHAT. Got it. But, there are differences in the situations described. One is a recurring situation between two people who are (presumably) sober, know each other, and are CHOOSING to re-engage under decidely negative circumstances. When a woman says NO, it is rape. ABSOLUTELY! But, let's not confuse the recurring situation that is described above with women who choose to imbibe alcohol, are forcibly raped, and then BLAMED for their sexual assaults. That's all I'm saying. I think her post has validity and a place, but I don't think it is similar to this thread (not that it is any less vile) and, as I suspected, would take us off-point about this alcohol and victim-blaming topic. That's all I meant.

Just yesterday the Minneapolis Star Tribune did something similar. When recounting the case of a U of M football player, they said he was charged with raping a woman too drunk to give consent. Seems clear enough. But just a sentence or two later they mention that she "had sex with" three men before the football player got there.

Now, either 1) she did genuinely consent to those other men, and mentioning this fact only served to make her appear like a slut, or 2) she didn't consent to the other men, in which case she didn't "have sex with" them, she was raped by them.

The use of language to blame victims is so pervasive that I'm sure many newspaper reporters don't even realize they're doing it.

Just yesterday the Minneapolis Star Tribune did something similar. When recounting the case of a U of M football player, they said he was charged with raping a woman too drunk to give consent. Seems clear enough. But just a sentence or two later they mention that she "had sex with" three men before the football player got there.

Now, either 1) she did genuinely consent to those other men, and mentioning this fact only served to make her appear like a slut, or 2) she didn't consent to the other men, in which case she didn't "have sex with" them, she was raped by them.

The use of language to blame victims is so pervasive that I'm sure many newspaper reporters don't even realize they're doing it.

My spidey senses also went off with the mention of her "guilty feelings" described afterwards, but her decision to re-engage. This "guilt thing" is common parlance and an oft-foisted proposition for accusing someone of falsely calling something rape--another method of diminutizing sexual assault. So, I get wary when I see it trotted out. Maybe that explains my reaction further. I hope you understand.

Um, JKayOh. It was rape. How do I know? Because I went through something very similar.

When I was 19, I dated and lived with a guy who constantly broke me down when I said "NO!" to drug use ... and sex. For instance, he had a few fetishes that I did not share and did not at all feel comfortable doing. So I would refuse, telling him simply, "No." And then he would badger me for hours, basically telling me I didn't love him etc. etc. if I didn't at least try those fetishes. And then if I broke down and tried them, and STILL decided I didn't like them, the next time he would pretty much badger me telling me I didn't love him etc., if I didn't do what he wanted in bed.

Same thing with drugs. If I didn't partake WITH him, he'd badger me until I just fucking gave up and gave in.

He RAPED me. And your friend? She too was raped.

I agreed. Please re-read my explanation. Didn't mean to take us off course.

Can (should) manipulation towards sex be considered rape as defined by state/federal penal code?

I live in San Diego, so I posted this to my blog, sent an email and called the news desk. The very nice man on the other end of the line carefully explained to me the difference between factual reporting and editorializing, which was frustrating to say the least. I explained that I had called to express my concern as a consumer and that his failure to understand my point of view only confirmed my belief that his news outlet was unable to meet my needs.

I don't know who teacherwoman talked to, but it sounds like she did better than I did. Anyway, here's the number. I talked to the webmaster, name of Dave. 619-527-6397

The managing editor is David Yirchott and his email address is: dyirchott@ibsys.com.

Here's the letter I sent him, if you want to crib from it:

Mr. Yirchott,
I was very disappointed with the article entitled "More Rapes Linked to Young Women on Drinking Binges" posted today. The article focused solely on the behavior of victims while being silent on the actions of perpetrators. In fact, the word "rapist" was never used in the article. This is a way of blaming the victim -- it implies that women get raped because they drink alcohol. First, no one can ever deserve to be raped. Second, women don't get raped because they drink. They get raped because men rape them.
Your article somehow manages to omit this key item in its very first sentence. The article is about "rapes involving women who go on drinking binges" rather than "men who rape intoxicated women." I was especially offended by the quote from a police lieutenant who said that these women "can't consciously make a good decision, such as to say no or leave." Why does the author not discuss the men who apparently cannot make the much simpler good decision, such as not to rape an intoxicated woman?
I hope that in the future your newspaper will give more thoughtful coverage of such a significant issue, rather than fall into the typical blame-the-victim mindset. We need to focus on the motives and actions of rapists, not their victims.

Jessica, you can let your breath out! Here's the email David Y. just sent me:

Esther,

I have integrated your suggested text into the first sentence of our story. It now reads: “San Diego police are investigating a rising number of rapes in which rapists assault women who go on drinking binges and become too intoxicated to fight back or say ‘no,’ it was reported Tuesday.”

This adds mention of rapists as perpetrators and still maintains the elements of heavy drinking impairing resistance that the head of the sex-crimes unit specifically mentions as increasing.

Thank you for your feedback.

Thank you Feministing! It's a small thing, but I'm going to work feeling good today. Together we had a voice.

xoxo

Why shouldn't it, sir no one? Coercing someone to have sex with you is rape.

Sadly, I did not realize that until much later.

Europeans get drunk 'to have sex'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7389980.stm

Campus rape ideology holds that inebriation strips women of responsibility for their actions but preserves male responsibility for both parties. So men again become the guardians of female well-being.

http://www.reddit.com/comments/6agjq/campus_rape_ideology_holds_that_inebriation/

Europeans get drunk 'to have sex'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7389980.stm

Campus rape ideology holds that inebriation strips women of responsibility for their actions but preserves male responsibility for both parties. So men again become the guardians of female well-being.

http://www.reddit.com/comments/6agjq/campus_rape_ideology_holds_that_inebriation/

sir no one,

Yes, "coercion" until sex /is/ considered rape under legal definitions in many states.

And there are far too many women who exists in relationships (and sometimes even marriage) who fall into this type of situation. (Especially women, I think, who are raised with the idea that men have trouble "helping themselves" when it comes to sex, so if they love the guy they'll just go along with it...)

Marilove,
Your position is troubling for a very simple reason: given your reasoning, every woman I have had sexual intercourse has raped me.

Your definition would make every woman who pressures a man to have sex a rapist.

But, that is a problem, because it makes your definition unbelievable to a lot of guys. And, if the whole point is to make rape a "man's issue," you won't do it by defining it so broadly that every man is going to have to say, "yeah, I was raped by my girlfriend last night because I was tired and wanted to go to sleep but she convinced me to have sex."

For what it is worth.

-Jut

Women are going to have to start taking more responsibility for themselves by not getting so plastered. Less alcohol = better decision making.

-Ben

jut:

What do you mean by your gf "pressuring" until sex?

Because if it's like "Hey, you wanna? Oh /come on/?" and then the person gives up, then I wouldn't consider it such a big deal. Often what women deal with and feel bad about afterwards is fairly intense, or they were young and insecure, and had trouble saying "no" for that reason.

Either way, the women I know don't pressure men for sex, and I think it's a bad behavior for either women or men to engage in. So no double standard.

Ben/libertyburning:

In rapes involving alcohol, it is more likely that the man has been drinking than the woman. Also, go crawl back under the bridge.

Um, no, Jut Gory. Maybe someone can better explain what I mean. But there is a difference between being tired but deciding to have sex anyway, and being coerced into, well, being raped.

And Ben? Why can't, oh I don't know, men take responsibility for themselves and NOT RAPE WOMEN? How 'bout that?

Great job esther!

marilove, my question was not an attempt to invalidate your statement. My question was genuine and if any harm came of it, I apologise.

Thanks for the reply a.k.a. Ninapendamaishi. I searched for legal defintions of coercion of sex as rape and most definitely found a lot of hits.
This is from Aphrodite Wounded:

"In Australia it is now recognized legally that doing or saying nothing to indicate free agreement to sexual contact, may under law be recognized as "absence of consent". ...
...similar reforms have been passed in the US, and most recently the UK. Such reform recognizes that submission does not equate consent and that women may be coerced in a number of non-violent but distressing ways. It addresses at least in part, the old and common assumption that men are entitled to use any means necessary to persuade or "seduce" a woman into sexual activity (5)
If a perpetrator has badgered a woman until she submits, he surely realizes that true consent is not present. Submission is not consent."

Thanks for your post marilove. I had not even thought of the connection between manipulation and rape until about an hour ago. You've made me a hell of a lot more aware of a practice I've always considered reprehensible but never thought of as illegal.

That's it, sir no one! "Submission is not consent." I knew there was a way to describe what I meant, but I couldn't quite grasp it. And I apologize if I got snippy. I've just had people tell me it wasn't rape, when it very clearly was.

Anyway, my current bf and I have had sex together when one of us wasn't really "in the mood" exactly -- if I'm feeling randy and my bf isn't, usually I'll just get naked in front of him. That usually works! I'm not coercing him into doing anything he doesn't want to do, however. If he still said (and he has, usually because he has a labor-intensive job and he's just physically exhausted), "Naaaaah, I'm really not in the mood," then I'd back off. And he does the same to me. If I'm not really in the mood, he'll give me his puppy dog eyes he KNOWS I can't say no to, and I'll usually be like, "Ok, but you're doing all the work!" and happily "give in." But if for whatever reason I'm still not in the mood, he'll back off, no questions asked.

That is different than manipulating and breaking someone down so they fuck you.

Ben, the argument for better decision making without alcholol is solid. Extending that argument to lay blame to those who decide to drink and drive is right on.

Furthering that extension by blaming someone who chooses to drink but does NOT choose to be raped is simply illogical.

Being raped is not a choice. Raping is.

Trying to qualify rape as a choice is like telling someone whose Jewish grandfather was murdered in the Holocaust should be blamed for his own death because he placed himself in a "bad" situation.

The article in no way blames women for rape. This article just basically just says, 'binge drinking leaves you less capable of defending yourself.' And less capable of saying no.

Just like the time I made the mistake of getting too drunk & putting myself in the situation of being easily mugged, this article just says, 'protect yourself'.

When you have two plastered people the odds of poor decision making--and risk taking--are awfully high.

Women are going to have to start taking more responsibility for themselves by not getting so plastered. Less alcohol = better decision making.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Ben, women don't "decide" to get raped. Just like robbery victims don't "decide" to get mugged.

Esther - incredible job! It's refreshing to see concerned citizens taking action, especially when it comes with results!

Ben - obviously, getting "plastered" lowers one's decision-making ability. But are women (and men - let's not forget rape can happen to anyone) just supposed to never drink so they can "protect themselves" from being raped? By that logic, women should just never leave their homes and should live alone, because acquaintance rape is a threat too. Life comes with risks, but avoiding every single one of them is not a viable option for people who want to enjoy life.

The true issue here isn't whether or not women should stop getting drunk, but how women can continue to drink, leave their homes, walk alone at night, or do WHATEVER we want without this constant fear that someone will take advantage of it.

TSMC is on point.

i mean, really... this isn't about "poor decision making", ben and sly, the article clearly spells out "rape" and "assault" while saying that the responsibility lies with the women who are assaulted.

and, yes, certainly, inebriation increases your vulnerability to all sorts of assault... however, how often have you seen headlines like "More Muggings Linked to Drinking Binges"? how about never. once in a while, you might see something about how to protect yourself, but this article isn't targeted to the survivors or potential targets of assault, it's just a report stating that survivors of sexual assault "drank too much", the too much implying that their actions led to their troubles. if the article offered any practical advice besides the implication that sobriety makes one less vulnerable, i might be closer to buying this particular load of bullshit, but, lo, no such luck.

so, yeah, that's victim-blaming, for the uninitiated, and putting it in terms of "poor decision making" is implying that, not only are these women to blame for having drank "too much", but that they were never raped, they just made "poor decisions". way to take it to the next level.

Wow. Some mean people here. Anyway, I don't know if you all read the full story but the police lieutenant who heads the sex crimes unit, Carlyn kendrick said,

"The majority are young women who start out in bars or at a house party and end up drinking too much," Kendrick told the newspaper. "They can't consciously make a good decision, like say no and leave."

I assuming she's a seasoned officer and experienced, and if she says women drink too much can't make good decisions and then I still say that women shouldn't drink so much and therefore they would make better decisions.
-Ben

Ben,

Do you not get it?

1) Raping an intoxicated person is a CRIME.
2) Why should a woman have to leave anywhere she wants to be, with the expectation that she will not be forcibly violated? Do you not enjoy that same right?
3) If, after a few beers one night, your "buddies" held you down and forcibly inserted their penises into you, would Carlyn Kendrick's words of "you didn't consciously make a good decision" ring just a bit hollow?
4) How about Carlyn Kendrick being quoted in an article saying that people inclined to rape intoxicated people should make better "conscious" decisions?
5) Does Carlyn Kendrick's counterpart in homicide tell all of the murdered people's families that the victim should have just said "no" and "left?"

Less alcohol = better decision making.

Right you are. If men did not binge drink so much, perhaps they would not make the decision to commit rape.
Alcohol DOES play a big factor in rape situations; but it's usually too much alcohol consumed by the RAPIST.

HRoN: Asking that men respect women's bodily sovereignty is a far cry from making men the guardians of female well-being.

Marilove,
Okay, so coaxing someone into sex is okay?
How about fondling a reluctant man until he gets aroused?
So, encouragement is okay?

All of which is manipulation, by the way.

Or, what happened to me, I did not want to have sex, and she threw a hissy fit about why I did not want to (and then turned on the cold shoulder until she got her way (kind of like your bf you mentioned). Actually, I do not think we had sex on that specific occasion, but I would bet many on this site may classify that as emotional abuse (or something). But, basically, she would get mad if I did not want to have sex with her, and sometimes I had sex with her even if I did not want to.

So, do you think this behavior consitutes rape or abuse? Because I don't.

-Jut

okay... thank you jkayoh and sarahmc... beat me to the punch.

jut,
i would say, straight-up, that constitutes abuse. doesn't sound like a healthy relationship to me, where one person holds out emotional punishment for noncompliance. yeah, i'm no social worker, but that sounds like a textbook abusive relationship - and not just to us man-hating feminazis (or something).

certainly, there is a degree to which coercion, coaxing, etc. does figure into even the healthiest of relationships, but what you describe sounds like a step farther.

but, you know what, it's your choice how to deal with how you were treated. there are plenty of people who could help you out with any lingering issues you may have around intimacy, power in relationships, sexuality and so forth. but you may prefer just to "man up" and pretend there was nothing wrong with it. then, maybe, you can pull it out of the bag in a future relationship to get a significant other of yours to put out when s/he doesn't want to...

wouldn't that be nice?

Once again I repeat my previous idea. Have a hotline available that will allow a woman to anonymously give a name, description, or whatever about a man if she has been raped. Then arrest said man, charge him with the crime, push through a conviction, and have him put away for life with no chance of parole. No embarrassment or hassle for a woman that really doesn't need it after, you know, she's been raped, and no chance of the scumbag getting away. Though completely anonymous rape will still be a problem, any other sort will quickly disappear, and once women know that they don't have to put up with that sort of thing, going to the police with the information after an anonymous rape will be less stigmatized. Hell, extend the hotline to domestic abuse as well. No trial, no bullshit, and no chance of patriarchy getting in the way of a conviction. Just call and convict.

"What's so hard about instead writing, "San Diego police are investigating a rising number of rapes involving men who attack intoxicated women."

Its not hard but it misses the point of the article, the rise is reported rape cases isn't from strangers attacking women, its women being rape by people they know while they are intoxicated.

To change the heading to what you suggests misses that point.

And Jut, if you don't want to have sex with your girlfriend when she wants, why the hell is she still dating you? Nevermind her abusing you, somebody needs to tell her she doesn't have to stay with somebody that can't keep up!
/mostly sarcasm
//mostly

open sketch - As nice as it would be to have the anonymous hotline you propose, its unconstitutional - see the sixth amendment.

Rar.

The other shitty thing is, if you see a story about, say, some type of male-on-male bar violence where both of the participants were probably drunk, you never see reporters take SPECIAL CARE to emphasize that the victim in the fight, if there was one, or the person who *did not* start the fight, was ALSO DRUNK. Yes, there's often a comment about how "alcohol was involved" in general. But no one ever warns drunk men to stop going around drunk all the time because other drunk men might want to get into fights with them, and they're being naughty-naughty for wanting to drink in the first place.

Fuck the sixth amendment. It's just some words on a piece of parchment written by some racist, sexist white people that made damn sure women didn't count as people. I'd say the right of women to have justice trumps any right a man might claim to have.

Men have enough privileges. We don't need rights on top of them, and we shouldn't have them if it interferes with justice and encourages violence against women.

djhop,

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether strangers attack them or not. The point is that women are not being raped in the abstract or raping themselves, it is that those who rape are attacking intoxicated women.

How about "rise in men attacking woman acquiantances who are intoxicated." If you want more accuracy.

That suggests that a criminal is choosing to target a victim (due to vulnerability) not that more women are taking risks.

In fact, rapes of more intoxicated women doesn't necessarily mean that more women are getting intoxicated. Maybe women drinking that much has remained constant, but reporting or raping has gone up. That is why it is misleading.

So, Jut Gory, my ex bf DEMANDING that I have sex with him, DEMANDING that I participate in the fetishes I did not want to participate in, and basically calling me a horrible human being if I didn't participate, sometimes FOR HOURS UPON HOURS, until just broke down and gave in because I was tired of having him yell at me and threaten me and tell me he was going to kick my ass out if I didn't do as he asked?

That's NOT rape? REALLY?

"Or, what happened to me, I did not want to have sex, and she threw a hissy fit about why I did not want to (and then turned on the cold shoulder until she got her way (kind of like your bf you mentioned). "

And yeah, that's abuse, and probably rape.

Jeezus, this is retarded. Woman cannot rape men. It cannot happen. It is god-damn impossible, and this "what about the menz" bullshit that comes up in every piece of news is fucking irritating. You know what about the men? We deserve whatever we get. We've collectively oppressed half the fucking people on the fucking planet since the start of the human race, and now were going to whine because our girlfriends wants sex, and we're tired? Tell that to the billions of rape victims over the ages. Men have it way too good and correcting any so called injustices against us would just tip the scale in favour of men even more. People wonder how I can hate my own gender, well, reading that shit should make it obvious. We cannot deal with even the smallest problem yet proudly surpress the better half of our species. It's disgusting.

And I'm done being angry. I need some tea.

"Just Gory, my ex bf DEMANDING that I have sex with him, DEMANDING that I participate in the fetishes I did not want to participate in, and basically calling me a horrible human being if I didn't participate, sometimes FOR HOURS UPON HOURS, until just broke down and gave in because I was tired of having him yell at me and threaten me and tell me he was going to kick my ass out if I didn't do as he asked?

That's NOT rape? REALLY?"

You gave consent, so legally no, that isn't rape.

Ok, I'm not done being angry. DjHop, if somebody held a knife to a woman's throat and told her to allow him to have sex with her, would that be rape? Well, this is the exact same thing. The exact same goddamn thing. It's exactly the same and in either case the man involved needs to have his testicles removed with a hacksaw.

He held a knife up to your throat for "hours upon hours"?

"Jeezus, this is retarded. Woman cannot rape men. It cannot happen."

Open sketch, that's a horrible thing to say. It may be rare, but it happens.

Oh, and tell that to all the boys who are molested by women (sometimes even female relatives), because that happens too.

The impact of rape is not just physical, it's usually emotional too -and men can feel emotionally violated as. Often times this is worse for women, because of our culture which generally subordinates women... but it's not black and white.

I am trained to support both female and /male/ victims of sexual abuse, by the way...

"fuck the sixth amendment" is not a legitimate argument, to say nothing for "this is retarded". on top of being incredibly offensive, you are missing the point. men and women can both be raped, and women can coerce men into having sex (rape).

"Men can feel emotionally violated"

Sure, I don't disagree. All I'm saying is it doesn't matter. It seems to me that men only start to 'feel' when that feeling is traumatic, and they can't seem to give a shit otherwise!

And I apologize for the retarded comment. I just felt the original word didn't have enough punch.

djhop:

FYI: "Open_sketch" is a "he". You seem like maybe you missed that in your last post.

JayKoh,

1.I am aware that rape is a crime, and it should be.

2.Why should a woman have to leave anywhere she wants to be, with the expectation that she will not be forcibly violated? I would hope for her own protection. I would leave a place if a shooting broke out.

3. If, after a few beers one night, your "buddies" held you down and forcibly inserted their penises into you, would Carlyn Kendrick's words of "you didn't consciously make a good decision" ring just a bit hollow? Probably since I would not have remembered exactly what happened last night.

4) How about Carlyn Kendrick being quoted in an article saying that people inclined to rape intoxicated people should make better "conscious" decisions? I agree with that.

5) Does Carlyn Kendrick's counterpart in homicide tell all of the murdered people's families that the victim should have just said "no" and "left?" No, she probably asked them if they were the owner of the gun and was the shooting in self-defense.

I can not believe in this day and age with the prisons as full as they are that people are naive enough to walk around assuming that crimes don't happen and that they don't bare any responsibility for protecting themselves.

we were both discussing marilove's comment.

Essential reading for some people here. Common sense for others.
http://www.wikihow.com/Show-Your-Teen-How-to-Protect-Themselves-from-Date-Rape

Man: I would like to have sex with you.
Woman: No thank you.
Man: Are you sure?
Woman: I think I'll leave now.
Man: Have a good night!

...that's NOT how rape scenarios play out.

libertyburning, you seem to be under the impression that rapists give their victims the opportunity to opt out of the rape before they attack them. Your implication that women should be sober enough to make the good choice to say no to rapists is ludicrous. If rapists respected "no" (or the absence of "yes"), they wouldn't be rapists!

libertyburning,

Rape is an incredibly common crime in this country. Much more common than murder. More common than mugging, even. And yes, part of it is cultural, because rape is more prevalent in certain places than others.

The problem is not that women like to go out at night, drink, and have fun. (I mean, some Middle Eastern countries don't allow women to do that, and women still get abused.)

The problem is the way we raise our men.

Oh, and lb? Don't patronize us. We are not stupid, freewheeling, irresponsible people.
If I ever have a daughter I will most certainly warn her that some men may attempt to sexually assault or rape her. I will teach her about drugs and alcohol and make sure she knows the ways in which she could become impaired if she drinks too much. I will warn her that some rapists prey on women who have consumed too much alcohol, because intoxicated women are more vulnerable. But I would never, ever suggest that there's anything she could do to "invite" a rape (which is, by definition, uninvited). And no matter the circumstances, all rape is wrong and no victim is ever to blame. BLAME RAPISTS.

"Sure, I don't disagree. All I'm saying is it doesn't matter. It seems to me that men only start to 'feel' when that feeling is traumatic, and they can't seem to give a shit otherwise!"

I'm really offended by this. My step brother was molested by his camp counselor when he was three years old and it really fucked him up. Are you trying to say that he doesn't matter?

Everybody's safety whether they're male or female should matter!

SarahMC

You said,
"I will warn her that some rapists prey on women who have consumed too much alcohol, because intoxicated women are more vulnerable."

"...because intoxicated women are more vulnerable."

That's my whole point!!! When I say that, it's called blaming the victim not the rapist. You say it and no one attacks you.
-Ben

"The problem is the way we raise our men."

Ninapendamaishi, I'm sure some there's at least a few men that had a decent upbringing and turned out to be criminals anyway. I'm also willing to bet that at least a few men grew with an terrible upbringing and actually turned out quite nice. Regardless of how people are raised, criminal activity is choice.

You've got to be kidding me.

There is a HUGE difference between the way I've expressed my views in this thread and the way you've expressed yours, lb.

You have completely removed agency from the rapist himself. You have stated that women must make better decisions (like "leaving and saying no," which I've already addressed) to avoid being raped, as though they have rape coming to them or something. Your comments have revealed a real lack of understanding of rape and sexual assault on your part.

No Ben, you did NOT say what SarahMC said. What you said was:

I assuming she's a seasoned officer and experienced, and if she says women drink too much can't make good decisions and then I still say that women shouldn't drink so much and therefore they would make better decisions.

and

Women are going to have to start taking more responsibility for themselves by not getting so plastered. Less alcohol = better decision making.

What Sarah MC said was this:

"I will warn her that some rapists prey on women who have consumed too much alcohol, because intoxicated women are more vulnerable."

They're not the same thing. At. All. As a matter of fact, you pretty much put the responsibility of rape squarely on the victim i.e. "women need to start taking more responsibility for themselves." SarahMC put the responsibility where the fuck it belongs: on the rapist i.e. "rapist prey on intoxicated women."

Ben, you have continually insinuated that women need to be responsible for preventing rape, which as a number of people have pointed out, is pretty impossible (and horrendously offensive). Not to mention the fact that it's a hell of a lot easier for a man to NOT BE A RAPIST than it is for a woman to avoid rape.

On a side note, I've always assumed a good amount of this "OMG GIRLZ SHOULDN'T DRINK CUZ U'LL GET RAAAAAAAPED!" moral panic was rooted in a fear of women participating in traditionally male activities (like getting completely shitfaced). It's totally "see what happens when you don't act like a lady?!" societal finger-wagging bullshit. It's also probably one of the reasons rape of intoxicated women is so rampant: dudes know they can get away with it and/or think they're completely justified in raping a woman because she failed to maintain a perfect amount of control and therefore doesn't deserve respect.

@libertyburning: Essential reading for some people here. Common sense for others.
http://www.wikihow.com/Show-Your-Teen-How-to-Protect-Themselves-from-Date-Rape

Uh, libertyburning I think you missed a wikihow link:

http://www.wikihow.com/Know-When-Someone-is-Not-Ready-to-Have-Sex

of particular note is the warning toward the bottom of the page:

"Don't have sex with someone who is intoxicated. Their decision-making is clouded. People do things when they are drunk that they wouldn't do when they are sober. "Having sex" with someone too drunk to understand what's going on is rape. Even if you are both drunk, you shouldn't have sex."

Common sense indeed.

SarahMC,

I'm not kidding. I really must be off or totally missing something here. Let's try this tid bit from Feminist Daily News.http://feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=2113

Report shows that men are more violent than men.

Duhhhh...

You'd think that women would realize that if men are the more violent of the sexes, then surely mixing in alcohol can't be helpful. Women just need to drink less. That's all there is to it. Problem solved.

"Problem solved. " 100% of rapes involved alcohol?

Right, because sober women are never raped.
Just like little baby girls, adolescents, and feeble old ladies are never raped.
Women wearing halter tops and women wearing the hijab are raped in this world, you insensitive prick. The common denominator is RAPISTS.
If you are suggesting that women simply separate themselves from men, PERIOD, in order to avoid rape, then I'd have to agree with you. Because that is truly the only reliable way for us women to avoid "being raped" (I usually try to avoid the passive) by scumbag men.

Or more accurately, djhop (and lb take note):

There are plenty of rapes where /the woman/ had nothing to drink. There are plenty (though fewer) rapes in which /the man/ had nothing to drink.

Furthermore, we have no reason to think that if women stopped drinking altogether (which please note, any reduction in freedom negatively impacts women's life quality), the incidences of rape would go down significantly.

A rapist, most commonly, is someone who repeats the behavior over and over. Maybe he targets intoxicated women because they are the easiest prey, and if they weren't available, he would simply find another target.

"There are plenty of rapes where /the woman/ had nothing to drink. There are plenty (though fewer) rapes in which /the man/ had nothing to drink."

The logical conclusion there would be to stop men from drinking, since there are fewer rapes according to you where the man had nothing to drink than rapes where the female had nothing to drink.

So why are you only stressing women shouldn't drink?

Who are you addressing, djhop?

I've never said women shouldn't drink...

djhop, legally speaking, consent coerced under duress is not actual consent. If I tell you that I have your family locked up in a dungeon, and show you pictures of them tied up so you know I'm telling the truth, and threaten to kill them unless you perform various sex acts on me, and you then do what I ask, have you consented? It seems to me you think that you have.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the law disagrees with you.

Ben, here is the problem with how you're reading Sarah's comment, and with your approach in general. First, Sarah is saying that, when it comes to individuals, herself, people she cares about, etc., OF COURSE she is going to warn them to take every possible precaution to keep themselves safe. Being slightly overprotective is virtually the definition of good parenting. On an individual level, no DUH it is smart to know how to lessen your risk of bad things happening to you. There is a HUUUUUUUGE difference between educating people you care about of the risks of certain activities (and being aware of those risks yourself) and saying, broadly applying your statement to all of society, that certain people *should not* take certain risks.

Second, the problem is, life is fraught with risk. By getting out of bed in the morning I am taking a risk. In order to function, then, society has to determine that some level of risk is acceptable, and that some reasonable risks that nonetheless yield bad outcomes should be remedied (this is why we have, you know, um, LAWS). If someone takes a risk society deems unacceptable, then we're comfortable saying he has to live with the consequences of his decision. But if he takes an acceptable risk, but is nonetheless injured, he can be remunerated. So if I take the acceptable risk of driving to work, and I am hit by a driver running a red light, I am entitled to compensation from him/his insurance. If, however, I got drunk before getting into my car, I was taking the unacceptable risk of driving drunk, and not only will I not get anything, I'll likely be charged with a DUI.

Here's an example of acceptable risk. I work in a high-rise in Los Angeles. Yesterday we had a 5.4 earthquake that shook the whole building, I mean it felt like it was going to topple over, and I was scared shitless. Now, certainly, my mom is going to worry about me and she might suggest I move somewhere less earthquake-y. Because if you live in Los Angeles, you live with the risk of earthquakes, period. But can you imagine a newspaper article with a headline screaming "More Earthquake Scares Linked to People Who Live in Los Angeles"?? Not only would that be a stupid headline, but no one would ever think to *blame* people in LA for earthquakes, since, um, we can't fucking do a damn thing about them. If I move to Toronto, is it less likely I'll be in a deadly earthquake? Sure. Does that mean I am not "taking responsibility" for myself if I continue to live in LA? Does society deem my risk of living in Los Angeles unacceptable?

Or, better yet, let's say it had been a bomb that shook my building. We're all plenty aware of terrorist threats and the fact that large cities are more likely to be targeted for attacks. Maybe we should start publishing newspaper articles about how risky it is for people to live in big cities, because terrorists are more likely to strike big cities. I mean, there are totally articles about that, right? Oh, there aren't? Huh. Well, at least we're making sure to hold those 9/11 victims responsible for their bad decision to work in the Twin Towers, right? I mean, it's not like the government's giving their families money or anything like that, right? We all recognize that they took a risk, and therefore they should take responsibility for the outcome of that risk -- right?

Yeah, not so much.

And yet my MOM might ask me to move somewhere smaller because she fears for my safety. Not because if I continue to live here I am making a "bad" decision or being "irresponsible." Because LIFE IS RISK. You cannot avoid risk ANYWHERE, you can only minimize it. So when you propose disproportionately blaming a woman for taking a perfectly normal, average, reasonable risk in going out with her friends at night (as men do all the time without social reproach), simply because staying in would be one of a myriad of ways in which an individual could reduce her risk of bad things happening to her, it's valid to criticize your decision to apply such a high standard to women only and not to men, and it's valid to question the reasons it's being done.

It isn't simply that adults are entitled to take whatever risks they want; it's that society tolerates a certain level of risk as reasonable, such that someone who takes a reasonable risk and is subsequently victimized is seen as "wronged" in our society, and isn't condemned as someone who didn't "take responsibility" for her actions. Your argument seems to be that the simple fact that it IS a risk justifies deeming it an unacceptable risk. But that's absurd. You need to justify why you're deciding that society can accept ONLY a small amount of risk-taking by women. And you're far from doing that.

"Fortunately for the rest of us, the law disagrees with you."

What was described was an abusive relationship. The jump from there rape is a large one.

If you don't say "No" then you can't call it rape. Men might be pigs, but we aren't mind readers.

Based on what some posters are suggesting we're all going to have to sign consent forms before having sex...oh wait, they already do that at some colleges.

I was extremely tired the other night & my girlfriend was 'bored' so she gave me a BJ. Only I never woke up. She told me the next day. According to some, I should've charged her with rape. My friends say, I should've woke up.

Based on the argument here, when a DRUNK girl sleeps with a DRUNK guy she normally wouldn't have its rape. Men call it beer goggling.

I wouldn't say "Submission is consent", but Acceptance is definitely consent.

SarahMC,

Did you actually read the article? Nowhere does it mention feeble old, ladies, children or babies. It does however mention college women who binge drink and that there is a conection between rape and women's decsisions and binge drinking. Sure, we know that other people get raped, but that's not what the article is about. I'm getting kind of burnt out on this, so I'll close by saying if it were me and I were a woman, I realize that minority report was a fictional movie and the police can't determine who's going to rape before they do it; neither can other people. It is therefore the responsibility of women to protect themselves by not drinking so much, arm themselves and beware. The criminals do what criminals do; crime. If you are that naive, you may also want to think twice about driving through bad neighborhoods at night. Yes the criminal is wrong, but I'd hate to see you get carjacked or using the n-work in the black side of time while not expecting to get your ass beat down based on using some silly academic argument like freedom of speech, or it's the criminal that should be blamed.

Law Fairy, that was perfect.

Sly, women's default state is not Consenting to Sex. Would you have us all walk around yelling "No!" 24/7 to make sure the men around us know we're not consenting to sex with them? My default is not "Yes!" Unless I explicitly SAY "yes" or enthusiastically take part in sexual activity with someone, I am not consenting. If that person goes ahead and touches me sexually anyway, he is committing rape.
And if you sexually touch an impaired person who can't speak or move, you are sexually assaulting and/or raping that person. The absence of "no" is not "yes."

"If you don't say "No" then you can't call it rape. Men might be pigs, but we aren't mind readers."

You aren't mind readers, but plenty of you aren't stupid either. You can tell whether someone is enthusiastically consenting (either physically, or, ideally verbally as well) and when someone is reluctantly "submitting".

"Based on what some posters are suggesting we're all going to have to sign consent forms before having sex...oh wait, they already do that at some colleges."

B.S. No one is suggesting that. And no colleges require that. When you just make stuff up to support your argument it's called "straw argument". Plenty of colleges /have/ adopted the principle of "affirmative consent". Go read up on that, since you don't seem to have a clue.

"I was extremely tired the other night & my girlfriend was 'bored' so she gave me a BJ. Only I never woke up. She told me the next day. According to some, I should've charged her with rape. My friends say, I should've woke up."

Well, couples can negotiate this kind of thing out on an individual basis, to an extent. But in plenty of states this would, under law, constitute "rape". And plenty of people would /not/ be okay, for various reasons, with having someone initiate/have sex with them when they're asleep. Just because you, in this particular relationship, are okay with that behavior, does not mean that you get to dictate that all people, in all situations/relationships, do not deserve protection from it either...

"Yes the criminal is wrong, but I'd hate to see you get carjacked or using the n-work in the black side of time while not expecting to get your ass beat down based on using some silly academic argument like freedom of speech, or it's the criminal that should be blamed."

How incredibly patronizing of you, jackass. Feminists are generally concerned with "systemic problems" and so here on this site we usually discuss thing on the societal/systemic scale. Sorry if can't comprehend that level of intellectual engagement...

Yes, because a woman going about her life, socializing just like men do, not hurting anyone, is *just* like a person driving through the bad part of town (you know - the black part) yelling racial slurs.

I sincerely ache for the daughters or future daughters of these men, who will surely end up either loathing themselves for having vaginas, or in therapy for years.

I was extremely tired the other night & my girlfriend was 'bored' so she gave me a BJ. Only I never woke up. She told me the next day. According to some, I should've charged her with rape. My friends say, I should've woke up.

Herein, I think, lies the cognitive dissonance many seem to be running into here. People think, "wait, my SO and I do something together that sounds similar to what some people here are describing as rape. Therefore, what they are describing can't be rape, because I think that would be ridiculous!"

A couple of factors are at work here.

First, consent CAN be inferred from the circumstances in many cases. This is true in many contexts. If you knock on my door and I open it wide and give you a hug, and you walk into my apartment, you aren't breaking and entering, because I clearly consented to your coming in, even though I didn't explicitly say "please come in." If I'm hooking up with a guy and I ask if he has a condom, and after he gets it on, I jump on top of him, I've pretty clearly consented even though I didn't say "yes, I want to have sex with you" (similarly, he has pretty clearly consented, given he put the condom on and helped pull me on top of him, etc.) That's what affirmative consent MEANS. It isn't about magic words, it's about the totality of the circumstances. If a teenage girl is curled up in a ball, sobbing, and doesn't offer any resistance (but really doesn't do much of anything) when you start to fuck her, she has pretty clearly NOT consented, and you are raping her. This isn't rocket science, you guys.

So, if your girlfriend gives you a BJ while you're asleep, we don't know from that information alone whether it was rape. If a stranger you have never met gave you a BJ while you were asleep, it was absolutely (and obviously) rape. But let's say you know your girlfriend has done this in the past, and it really turns you on knowing she does it, and you've told her you like it when she does that. Well, reasonably inferring from the totality of circumstances, it sounds to me like you've consented to the BJ. Therefore, not rape.

Second, just because something may or may not meet a technical legal definition of rape, doesn't mean you're going to jail. As a general rule, rape doesn't get prosecuted without an accuser. So your girlfriend probably isn't going to get prosecuted for rape, even if she did technically rape you, if you don't go complaining about the midnight BJ. Now, maybe she took a risk, but part of being in a relationship is having enough trust between the two of you that 1) you understand what's within the acceptable bounds of the relationship (and stay within those bounds) and 2) when you take risks, you do so trusting your partner to have the "right" reaction to those risks. Couples who are into S/M understand this -- that's why they have safe words, talk about it beforehand, etc. -- since a lot of S/M, absent the totality of circumstances indicating consent, looks like rape on its face.

In fact, while I'm on the subject of trusting relationships -- all you guys fretting about false rape accusations? Maybe you should take responsibility for your behavior and recognize that when you have sex with a girl you don't know very well she might turn around and accuse you of rape. So if you don't want to go to jail, don't have sex with random women!

Whoa, someone should write an article on this.

"...all you guys fretting about false rape accusations? Maybe you should take responsibility for your behavior..."

Ahhhaa, that's just lovely. Now if that isn't pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. What do you think of that SarahMC? It's okay for men to take responsibility for their actionss, but when I suggest that women do the same, you tell me I'm blameing the victim. Just priceless. Is this not ass backwards or what?
-Ben

umm libertyburning -- im pretty sure she was being sarcastic - aka pointing out the irrationality of your argument - sorry!

lb, ahh the troll exhaustion point. when they can't actually respond to substantive points made against them, but instead jumps immediately to rag on some obvious bit of sarcasm or hyperbole.

thelawfairy, i love you! excellent posts here.

Law Fairy--Good argument. I agree.

I think the problem with some date rape scenarios, at least as they're being argued here, is that both parties are so drunk neither is lucid enough to navigate the gray areas...ie, there may be mixed signals, the guy may pick up on some, not others...

When I've gotten mixed signals, I've always backed off. But I've been told my a number of dates that while they really appreciated my respect, what they really wanted when they gave those mixed signals was for me to be bold. In fact, that's been the rule not the exception. I continue to resist that argument, but I suspect a lot more people agree with it.

The problems arise when 2 people feel differently about it. And that's usually when they're drunk.

marilove and djhop: good, you two, go ahead and continue to debate whether I was raped and you will see the reason why lots of men will not buy into the current definition of it.

Puckalish, yes, you are not a social worker and are too quick to presume things. Of course, I only told you what was pertinent to this point, and did not give you the whole picture of our relationship. Actually, it was one of the best relationships I had and, even though it ended, we are the best of friends.

And, Law Fairy, you better watch out. Because, you are coming very close to suggesting that marriage is consent to have sex. Open Sketch might agree with you, because if the person (man or woman) is not having sex with you on demand, (he or she) should be dumped immediately. But, if you keep up that attitude, you might get crucified.
-Jut

sly, you still did the right thing and that's what we need to teach everyone to do--if it's unclear, it's better to stop and talk about it than forge on ahead. the lesson here is that we should teach our kids to communicate as much as they can about what they do and do not want when it comes to sexual encounters, but ultimately, if in doubt, take a step back and wait.

i realize that this may result in some lost opportunities due to miscommunication, like the ones you describe--i've had some instances myself when i wanted a guy to go further, but since i didn't TELL him that, he backed off. what i tell myself is that my slight disappointment at a guy's inability to read my mind is much, much, MUCH better than my feeling violated by a guy who "read my mind wrong" and went for it, despite my less than enthusiastic consent. it's a cost-benefit analysis and sometimes you have to give something up. if more guys were like you and paused when they read some mixed signals, more girls would probably feel comfortable with voicing what they wanted in more unequivocal terms.

lb, I was being sarcastic. I'm glad to see you can recognize absurdity when it blames MEN for bad things that happen to THEM. Awfully convenient.

Jut, that's a really bad slippery slope argument (and one I knew someone would have to jump on eventually). Saying "look at context" is nowhere near the same BALLPARK as saying "here's a bright line rule that says doing X always means Y." My approach requires nuance and subtlety. Okaying marital rape has the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Law Fairy: You are my hero. You aren't by chance writing anything I can purchase, are you? :)

rileystclair: "the lesson here is that we should teach our kids to communicate as much as they can about what they do and do not want when it comes to sexual encounters, but ultimately, if in doubt, take a step back and wait."

I heartily agree. This is slightly OT from the original post, but this whole discussion really shows how badly we need good, thorough, comprehensive sex ed, as well as much less social stigma around the topic of sex (actual-sexual-relations-between-real-people sex, not nearly-naked-photoshopped-ladies-on-billboards sex). If sex was talked about realistically with kids, starting around the onset of puberty (or even before), I think these ideas around what is/isn't rape would be much less relevant. If men and women were comfortable talking to their potential partners about what's expected and what's not, many of these fears about men thinking they're going to be accused of rape when they thought it was consensual would be much less of an issue. I recognize we are probably several light years away from that kind of society, but I can do my part to educate my future children, both male and female (and intersex, as the case may be). Once again, feminism is proven to be an essential ingredient in making a better society.

You'd think that women would realize that if men are the more violent of the sexes, then surely mixing in alcohol can't be helpful. Women just need to drink less. That's all there is to it. Problem solved.

You are absolutely right. Since men are the most violent of the sexes, and alcohol is known to lower people's inhibitions and reduce their impulse control, we should prohibit MEN from consuming it! (Especially since the rapists involved in many intoxication rapes have also been drinking). Brilliant! Gimmie that beer!

And yeah, ladies. How dare you, as a grown adults, go parading around outside the house like you're human or something, consume a perfectly legal substance, and think you DON'T deserve to be sexually assaulted? I mean really - do you actually believe you're entitled to the right to engage in the public sphere without the fear of having someone's dick forced on you? The audacity of some broads, I tell you!

Furthermore, it's also important to mention a particular dubious double-standard. For women, drinking is an "invitation" to be raped. For men, drinking is an excuse to rape.

I was always 100% against any bastard who raped and 100% pro the woman, no questions asked. Till this case came up locally.

An 18 yr old female in skimpy clothes was out on the town, drinking with her mates, getting progressively drunker and flirting and snogging with several men. She approached a male of 21, also out with his mates, snogged him, and at 1am called a taxi, took his hand and led him into it, and took him back to her flat. (The taxi driver later testified that they were both drunk and were kissing and petting in the taxi.) Once at her flat she took him to her bed.

Next morning the woman woke up, minus her panties but still in her mini skirt and bra top. An intimate investigation of herself told her that unprotected sexual intercourse had taken place. The man was still asleep. She phoned the police and he was charged with rape, and the resultant court case is how I heard about the incident. She did not say any force was used. In court neither of them could remember past getting in the taxi and neither had any recollection of having sex, either. But he was found guilty of rape.

This case turned my usual opinions upside down: I feel sorry for the guy.

I'd very much like to hear others' views on this incident.

Helena

I was always 100% against any bastard who raped and 100% pro the woman, no questions asked. Till this case came up locally.

An 18 yr old female in skimpy clothes was out on the town, drinking with her mates, getting progressively drunker and flirting and snogging with several men. She approached a male of 21, also out with his mates, snogged him, and at 1am called a taxi, took his hand and led him into it, and took him back to her flat. (The taxi driver later testified that they were both drunk and were kissing and petting in the taxi.) Once at her flat she took him to her bed.

Next morning the woman woke up, minus her panties but still in her mini skirt and bra top. An intimate investigation of herself told her that unprotected sexual intercourse had taken place. The man was still asleep. She phoned the police and he was charged with rape, and the resultant court case is how I heard about the incident. She did not say any force was used. In court neither of them could remember past getting in the taxi and neither had any recollection of having sex, either. But he was found guilty of rape.

This case turned my usual opinions upside down: I feel sorry for the guy.

I'd very much like to hear others' views on this incident.

Helena

Law Fairy,
I agree. I was being sarcastic. However, the feminist tautology: "rape is rape" leaves no room for the nuance or subtlety you recognize.

That is part of the problem. People, and their relationships with each other, are not simple. This gives rise to the cognitive dissonance you talk about.

Behavior that some consider to be rape is not considered so by others. Thus, having sex with a drunk woman is (or can be) considered rape, while sex with a drunk man is (usually) not, simply because the man does not consider it to be. As long as that is the case, many men will not consider rape to be their problem, because they do not agree with the definition put forward in society.
-Jut

Oh, libertyburning, your reaction to Law Fairy's comment was completely predictable. She was challenging YOU to be consistent. If you insist that women "take responsibility" to avoid becoming victims, you better hold men to the same standard. And, as expected, you're just not down with that. You're a sexist hypocrite.

Jesus Christ, who let the trolls play?

open_sketch is a known troll and I feel he really should be removed based on his obvious refusal to partake in any sort of logical discourse. Instead he just enjoys making obviously sarcastic comments in order to derail the thread.

Sly, libertyburning, djhop and jut glory.

Ya'll have crossed over into the snarky, sarcastic bullshit a few times, but overall ya'll are still keeping it respectful.

The Law Fairy
Will you move to Massachusetts with me and get married? (I'm assuming, based on previous posts that you are female) You rock, and are probably my favorite commenter.

Let me also highlight the difference between making a bad (sexual) decision while drunk and being raped. I have hooked up with people while drunk, who I would never have gone near when I was sober. The difference in circumstances was that after a few drinks, I was actively looking for someone to make-out with and possibly do a little more. I remembered the entire encounter. I had enthusiastically participated, and I always had the awareness to insist on protection. The next morning after, though I would sometimes smack my forehead and think "damnit! Why did I get with that asshole? No more whisky, it makes me too horny." That's a far cry from waking up, having no recollection of the night before, and having some rather sore genitals, indicating that somebody probably had sex with me.

So MLEmac, I'm assuming you were responding to my post (nobody else has :-( ), should the guy in this case be convicted of rape or not, in your opinion? Helena

Law Fairy, you are awesome.

Legally, IIRC, "forcible compulsion" (in the state of NY, anyway) is defined as either actual physical restraint or the threat of harm to the victim or others. So marilove, what you describe is not legally rape - of course I cannot speak for your own experience, and he seems like a nasty guy, but legally you consented. The family-in-a-dungeon scenario would be forcible compulsion.

MLEmac: so, I am a troll if I make sarcastic or snarky remarks? I have been respectful, and I have never called anyone names (whether it be troll, or sexist hypocrite). I have only pointed out (or tried to) that this sort of discourse on rape is incredibly difficult, because we do not agree on what that word means.
-Jut

Maybe nobody has replied to your post, radfem, because it doesn't really add anything to the discourse.
You say: I was always 100% against any bastard who raped and 100% pro the woman, no questions asked. Till this case came up locally.

So now you're not 100% bastards who rape? Bastards who rape are always, always wrong. The guy in your story does not sound like a rapist bastard. The girl does not appear to have been a rape victim. I find it hard to believe that he was found guilty of rape, when even groups of men who VIDEO TAPE gang rapes of underage, passed-out girls are rarely convicted.

That should say, "So now you're not 100% against bastards who rape?"

MLEmac, in highlighting the difference between making a "bad (sexual) decision" and rape, you only highlighted the difference between making a "bad (sexual) decision" that you remember and one that you don't remember.

"waking up, having no recollection of the night before, and having some rather sore genitals, indicating that somebody probably had sex with me."

The story that Helena posted and the supposed difference between bad decision making and rape highlights why, I think, there is such an incomprehensible negative male reaction to issues of rape. There are two issues:

1) This is all predicated on male privilege. As a long-lived patriarchy, most of society accepts the suffering of women, regardless of status or situation, as the norm. On the flip side, a man suffering similarly in the same or different situations is focused on because it's so strange and unusual.

2) Because of male privilege, validated by the media, the very few instances of men being falsely or wrongly accused of rape are blown wildly out of proportion. The result of these incendiary stories is to shift focus away from the many rape victims whose cases are either never solved or never reported and onto the sympathetic men whose lives are ruined by accusations. After all, why shouldn't we be sympathetic to someone falsely accused of anything?

The problem is, because of the way and frequency in which these stories are reported, people perceive these false accusations as happening much more often than they actually do. And more importantly, people subsequently perceive the occurrence of false accusations as more important than the true occurrences of rape. And thus we see the incomprehensible reaction against rape.

No one (I hope) likes rape. No one likes wrongful accusations/convictions. And the perception has become that the negatives of wrongful accusation outweigh the negatives of rape, therefore invalidating the potency, and perhaps even need, of the charge of rape.

radfem, I was actually not responding to your post, because it was posted when I was in the process of writing mine. Either way, I can certainly make a few comments on it.

First, any story that starts out with "the girl was wearing skimpy clothes and snogging a bunch of guys" is not going to make much of an impression on me. The girl could have been naked and fucking every guy in the room, it doesn't mean that she didn't say no to the last one, making it rape.

Fortunately, I have never been the victim of rape, drunk or otherwise, but I can certainly attest to the fact that if I wake up with no recollection of the night before with a strange guy in my bed. I'm sure I would have the same reaction. For Chrissake, who wouldn't? I wasn't on the jury of this case, so I could never have any sort of opinion on whether the man intentionally raped the girl, or was so drunk himself that he didn't perceive the fact that she couldn't legally give consent. There are a number of questions I'm asking, such as what happened to their friends? Were they aware that they were leaving together while clearly intoxicated, and likely unable to give or ask for consent? I also am wondering, if the man was so drunk, he doesn't remember what happened. How was he able to perform sexually? Many men will have varying degrees of trouble when they've had too much to drink, and I can only imagine how much he drank in order to not have any recollection of the night. So either he is a rare guy who can still perform sexually when totally shitfaced, or he actually does recall more than he claims.

My first week of college, we had an assembly where a former lawyer described a case he had once worked on. It was somewhat similar. I will describe it with as many details as I can remember.

A girl went to a party, and shotgunned 5 beers. A guy shows up, and they seem to have an instant chemistry. He has three beers himself, and then stops drinking, because he figures that if the flirting with the girl leads to sex, he wanted to be able to "rise to the occasion." Then the party hosts bring out a tray of jello shots containing everclear. The girl starts having a few, and the guy proceeds to hand her a few more, which she took willingly. She had a total of 5 beers, and 5 everclear jello shots, combining to the equivalent as if she had had 20 ounces of a normal liquor (everclear has a much higher alcohol percentage than other hard liquors). She eventually got sick and ran outside and puked. The guy walked her back to her apartment. They started making out, then she ran into the bathroom and puked again. She came out and started passionately kissing her again (at this point in the lecture, every person cringed without hesitation. The speaker informed us that she had apparently brushed her teeth, however). She then said she was really tired and passed out on the couch. The guy hung out for a while, and watched tv. She woke up, and seemed to have sobered up a bit. So then they went in the bedroom and had sex. He leaves early in the morning, and leaves a note with his number. She wakes up a few hours later, with a god awful hangover, and no recollection of what had happened. She finds the note, and calls him, asking who the hell he is and what happened, learning that she had lost her virginity. She then goes to the campus security in order to find out what was in those jello shots, and they convince her to go to the police.

The lawyer who was giving the speech then opened up the floor for questions, the first one asked was "did the guy know what was in the jello shots?" The answer was "yes", in fact the guy helped make them earlier that day. With a series of questions asked a few things became known. His logic was that she had puked a couple times, removing a couple of units of alcohol from her system. Since it had been a few hours since she had the drinks, he also figured her system had processed most of it, thus she was okay to give consent. The problem was that he forgot to take into the account the strength of the everclear. Given that she would have processed 5 ounces by the passage of time, plus thrown up another 2, he thought he was in the clear. In reality, it would have taken another 13 hours for her to have been clear of the liquor.

The guy had been a bartender in the past, and thus would have known how strong everclear was and the effects on a 5'4" girl who had 5 shots of it, plus an unknown quantity of alcohol before he arrived at the party (he estimated to himself that she had had about 3 beers before he showed up).

So this is what it came down to:
We all agreed the girl should have taken better care, and her friends probably should have been watching out for her
Most of us agreed that the guy probably did not mean to cause harm, but we also agreed that, given his experience as a bartender, and the fact that he helped make the shots, he should have known that there was no way she could have legally given consent.

the audience then voted on whether they would have convicted him. It was about 60/40 for conviction. The truth was that he was convicted, spent a few years in prison. Then was unable to get his degree because no college would allow him to attend as a convicted felon, and he also had serious trouble finding a job.

It was a complicated case, everyone felt bad for the people involved, and we all vowed to stay away from everclear cause it would fuck up our drunk math.

So, yeah. I don't think there is ALWAYS a clear cut answer as to whether the guy intentionally violated the girl, but what it comes down to is that she did not consent, and I feel kinda bad for the guy who made a really stupid decision he ultimately really regrets and then the rest of his life is totally fucked.

as an afterthought, freshman orientation was certainly a bit of a downer after hearing this story.

Helena,

SPOT ON! These are exactly the kinds of situations that are happening on college campuses and no one wants to talk about the "gray-rape." Becareful though, it's a little dangerous think differently from the main-stream here.

-Ben

Well, lb, since nobody here has actually insisted that such a situation is always rape, you are once again barking up the wrong tree.

But since you are so adamant that women make decisions that prevent them from being raped (as though that's possible), I am sure you will agree that men must make decisions that prevent them from being falsely accused of rape.
In your own words, "problem solved."

I never actually have had a morning where i woke up with no recollection of the night before. Fortunately, I tend to have a pretty good idea of which shot should be my last. I can only imagine the way I'd feel if I were to someday wake up and realizing that someone had sex with me. He probably would have fully noticed that I was incoherent and/or stumbling around and most likely not able to legally give consent. So yeah, that's rape. If that happened, the first thing I would do is immediately find out what the fuck happened. If anyone saw me being led back to my room by someone I didn't know very well, etc. I absolutely cannot stand the bullshit arguments about "how is someone supposed to know if s/he's had to much?" Here are a few clues. 1. S/he's puking 2. S/he has serious trouble walking. 3. S/he is unable to say any sort of coherent phrase. It's common sense. A decent person is not going to sleep with someone under those circumstances.

Jut, you've pointed out the difficulty of discussing rape with illogical arguments, which I found to be rather insulting towards marilove, and others. I'd say it was very clear from her first mention of her previous experiences, that she was in no way indicating that convincing your partner to have sex when they are not in the mood is the same thing.

You said something about how apparently all men get raped when women pressure them when they are not in the mood, and they give it, you were rather sarcastically drawing the conclusion based on the straw argument that we think all women are raped when their boyfriends convince them to have sex after they said they were not in the mood.

I'll admit, I don't think I should have included you in the list of trolly types who were taking over the thread, I apologize for that. I was a bit frustrated with the derailment of the thread to a bunch of assholes using the same tired rape apologetic tactics whenever there is a post on date-rape, etc.

MLEmac: i do not know if the thread was "derailed" by rape apologetic tactics, as you say. Oftentimes, when there are these rape posts (including this one), the emphasis is on rape being the problem of the rapist, NOT the problem of the victim.

My point, which I do not take to be a straw man argument, is that a big problem with these discussions is that men and women often do not agree about what constitutes rape/sexual assault/harassment. That is, that there are examples where feminists will say it is rape/sexual assault/harassment when one "pressures" (for lack of a better word) another person to have sex. Well, women do that to men sometimes; frankly, I do not think it is unusual in any complex human relationship. The only difference is that, in general, men do not view that as being rape/sexual assault/harassment.

No apologies necessary; no harm, no foul. However, given that I am probably a minority voice here, I do not want my challenges to the feminist line of thought to be misunderstood to be anything less than an attempt at constructive dialogue.
-Jut

MLEmac: i do not know if the thread was "derailed" by rape apologetic tactics, as you say. Oftentimes, when there are these rape posts (including this one), the emphasis is on rape being the problem of the rapist, NOT the problem of the victim.

My point, which I do not take to be a straw man argument, is that a big problem with these discussions is that men and women often do not agree about what constitutes rape/sexual assault/harassment. That is, that there are examples where feminists will say it is rape/sexual assault/harassment when one "pressures" (for lack of a better word) another person to have sex. Well, women do that to men sometimes; frankly, I do not think it is unusual in any complex human relationship. The only difference is that, in general, men do not view that as being rape/sexual assault/harassment. That is where there is the disconnect between men and women.

No apologies necessary; no harm, no foul. However, given that I am probably a minority voice here, I do not want my challenges to the feminist line of thought to be misunderstood to be anything less than an attempt at constructive dialogue.
-Jut

When it comes to sex via coercion or pressure, it is very hard to draw any sort of arbitrary line in the sand. Every situation and couple is different. In some cases, it is incredibly clear that it was rape, such as in cases of a boss threatening to fire, or otherwise destroy the life of a subordinate unless they have sex. However, boss/subordinate affairs can also be totally consensual. So saying that all sex between a boss and a worker is automatically rape is ridiculous. Every case needs to be looked at on its own. The same can be said of situations in couples where one is not in the mood and the other persists until s/he is successful. Every couple does that, because there is no possible way that they will always be in the mood for sex at the same time, every time. The difference between consent and not comes when it shifts from persuasion and coercion. In the situation you described with your girlfriend, it did seem like she might have gotten a little pushy, and then upset when it still didn't work, but then she abandoned it, and I can only assume that you two continued to be together for a decent amount of time afterward. I remember having a similar fight in my first sexual relationship when my advances were rejected for the first time. I got upset and cried, and accused him of not loving me, etc. A number of reasons can be attributed to this. It was a shitty relationship anyways. We had been together for a few years and it started falling apart, and then we thought "hey, maybe if we have sex, we can save this thing." So any sign of that plan not working (and it obviously didn't) would upset me. I was also rather young and still subscribed to the idea that guys want it all the time, so obviously if he "wasn't in the mood" it was because there was something about me, or so I thought.

Jut:

However, the feminist tautology: "rape is rape" leaves no room for the nuance or subtlety you recognize.

How so? Can subtlety only exist in the absence of clarity? I'm not familiar with any feminist tautology that holds, say, drunk sex is always rape. I think most feminists agree that drunkenness makes it much more likely that a rape occurred, but I don't think most of us would say that if you're drinking and you have sex, you've been raped. I've certainly had sex after consuming a fair amount of alcohol, and I've never been raped.

That is part of the problem. People, and their relationships with each other, are not simple. This gives rise to the cognitive dissonance you talk about.

Right. Exactly my point. Just because some situations that seem to you to be like something you would not consider to be rape, in fact IS rape, does not mean your relationship involves rape. Like you say, each relationship is individual. So what may be rape for one couple, is not for another. And just because something is NOT rape for one couple, does not mean it NEVER is.

Behavior that some consider to be rape is not considered so by others. Thus, having sex with a drunk woman is (or can be) considered rape, while sex with a drunk man is (usually) not, simply because the man does not consider it to be. As long as that is the case, many men will not consider rape to be their problem, because they do not agree with the definition put forward in society.

Thanks for this -- actually, you've made a really great point. Because, here's the thing: if someone doesn't think he has been raped, HE HASN'T. Because rape is not like other crimes -- it isn't a question of, you meet objective elements X, Y, and Z, and you have a crime. Rape is a SUBJECTIVE crime, which means that the victim's state of mind matters. That's what it means when consent is the relevant inquiry. If a drunk guy considers himself to have consented, then he consented. Therefore, not rape. That doesn't mean it will always be the same for the women in question. As an aside, this discussion provides a great jumping-off point for the larger discussion about how our culture socializes women to look at sex. Most women would likely feel a lot less ambivalent about sex (and, accordingly, consent would be more likely, or at least more clear) if we weren't treated so poorly for having it.

Does this mean that everyone who says "I was raped" was raped? Of course not. It means everyone who didn't consent to the sex has been raped. That men are more likely than women to consent does not justify disregarding the woman's feelings. And, further, it is uniquely a feature of male privilege to simply ignore the other party's feelings, rather than considering for one moment that perhaps a situation could seem very different to a woman than it does to a man.

Oh, and MLEmac -- even easier than moving all the way to Mass., you could always come live in my awesome state, California ;)

Law Fairy:
Interesting points, although I do not know how long we want to keep the discussion going (as it appears everyone has left the room, so to speak). However, that may allow us to derail this post in relative peace.

While you talk about the subjectivity of the victim, your talk about consent is very objective. The problem with that is that, even if a woman says "yes," if she subjectively does not want to (or feels pressured, etc., without physical force, of course), did she consent?

That would lead me into the "derailing" of the post, because a big problem arises with statutory rape. Here, even if there is ACTUAL consent, the law creates a legal fiction whereby consent cannot legally be given. That is why discussions about stranger rape/date rape/statutory rape get so complicated; they are three VERY different animals but people try to treat them all the same.

Another problem: let's take the drunk woman and say she is too drunk to consent; then let's take an equally drunk man; if he is too drunk to consent, as well, and they have sex, does a rape occur? If neither can consent (and we don't have to define at what point one is too drunk to consent-heck if we put it at the legal limit for DWI, the bar scene would quickly become a thing of the past), what happened?

In short, I don't think the objective/subjective dichotomy gets you out of the problem.
-Jut

Jut, I could be wrong, but I've always been told that it's usually the case that one party is sober enough to know what s/he is doing, because otherwise sex could not occur. *disclaimer: could be wrong! it has happened!*

Rebecca:
Yes, we are speaking hypothetically. Obviously, if one person is passed out, that is an easy case. However, if neither party remembers what happened (as discussed above), what is the case there? And, on a related point, at what point is a woman "too drunk to consent"? It has to be at some point between complete sobriety and passing out. Conceivably, both parties could be "too drunk," but actively engage in sex even though their capacity to consent is impaired. How do you analyze these possibilities?
-Jut

Law Fairy, I love you. Helena, I don't believe you're actually going to contribute anything, though I could be wrong. MLEmac, that is depressing. Legally? That would be rape. Morally? I am leaning away from it.

I've had exactly two (out of um, maybe fifteen different people?) sexual encounters that made me uncomfortable. 1. I was 17, sexually experienced. My 17 yo male friend had never been drunk, was a virgin, had a long-distance girlfriend. We drunk a bottle of vodka together, I wake up snuggled on a couch with his dick in my hand. He was quite happy but I was wracked with guilt and still feel uncomfortable about it. Especially since he was quite depressed and really missing his girlfriend in America (I live in New Zealand)... that was never going to work out and apparently he's quite proud of himself losing his virginity to me but that certainly felt yucky.

2. Went to a new friend's house, first time we'd ever gone out. I brought wine, then we were going to a pub so I skulled the bottle of wine. Friend's ex-boyfriend was there, we got on well. I got far too drunk far too quickly. He walked me home, I can't remember anything after getting home, woke up undressed with a condom in the bin. My flatmate confirmed we had had sex. I examined my feelings, concluding that being me if my flatmate had heard it I was probably QUITE enthusiastic, and was mostly irritated because I couldn't remember and wouldn't get to sleep with him again and because that was a totally dicky thing to do to the woman who invited me out.

I do not view these incidents as rape, but damn right there's a lot of potential. I don't know what my point is but there's my 2c anyway

Sarah: "Maybe nobody has replied to your post, radfem, because it doesn't really add anything to the discourse."

Thank you Sarah, for that nice welcome to me as a new member. I appreciate it :-)

Sarah" You say: I was always 100% against any bastard who raped and 100% pro the woman, no questions asked. Till this case came up locally. So now you're not 100% bastards who rape?"

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying I never asked any questions before! If a woman said she was raped I accepted that she was raped and the man she was accusing was a rapist bastard, no questions asked!

Of course rapists are still utter scum who ought to be locked up, key thrown away etc. The difference now is that I am more likely to actually read the trial report before condemning the man automatically, because there ARE these "grey cases" where maybe drunken sex happens between two people.

Helena

Hrovitnir wrote "Helena, I don't believe you're actually going to contribute anything, though I could be wrong".

Another vote of confidence in me.

I've been a feminist all my life (I am now 50). My full time job is as a researcher and writer in women's history, and as soon as I join this board two people immediately say, on the basis of my leaving one single message, that they don't believe I have anything to contribute. Charming.

Shall I go and boil my head then? Or just unsubscribe?

Helena

JUT: "let's take the drunk woman and say she is too drunk to consent; then let's take an equally drunk man; if he is too drunk to consent, as well, and they have sex, does a rape occur? If neither can consent what happened?"

This is exactly why the incident I cited is so interesting. Neither party remembers anything. How do we know SHE didn't unzip him, suck him, and sit on his dick? We don't know! She doesn't know and he doesn't know. Yet he is the one who is accused of and found guilty of rape.

As to the questions where were her friends etc, who knows? Maybe she leaves that bar each night with a different guy, in which case why would they try to stop her? They may have been as drunk as her, they may have been engaged in snogging and flirting and not noticed she left. As for a drunk man and erections, I have personal experience: (some) young men can definitely get hard when drunk.

Personal disclaimer: I have myself been raped by a man, 14 years ago. This was a rape by coercion/blackmail/threat of physical violence. I am also very anti getting drunk. It seems to cause people an awful lot of social problems as well as health ones.

Helena

Not that this is any excuse, but news organizations, and newspapers in particular, are notorious for using the passive voice when describing events and scenarios. It's one of the ways in which they remain "neutral" when telling a story. They're trying not to blame men who rape drunk women by making it sound like they purposefully preyed on the intoxicated. Instead, the blame comes off the other way, like the women should have taken the responsibility not to get drunk.

As a high-school teacher, I've taught my female students that it's their duty to keep their wits about them so they don't end up in a situation that compromises their safety. But I also taught that, according to Canadian law, having sex with a drunk woman can be charged as rape so the males I taught were made aware that a drunk female is not an excuse to get laid. Hopefully I did both sides justice.

Renee wrote:
"It's not hard at all to write a woman positive headline. The fact of the matter is that we live in a rapist apologist culture."
--------------------------------------------
I would extend the counter-argument that we also live in a violent-woman apologist culture. As evidenced by the fact that Mary Winkler now regained custody of her two daughters.

In case nobody remembers Mary Winkler shot her preacher husband in the back as he slept, then ripped the phone from the wall so he couldn't dial 911. Then she waited for him to bleed to death for 20minutes. She served a farcically brief 2 months in a mental institution on her guilty verdict. She pleaded down to manslaughter apparently she was the victim of DV based upon her holding up a shoe on Oprah Winfrey (it would feel like a Monty Python skit if it wasn't so sad & twisted).

This in the face of her daughters saying their dad never yelled or hit their mother or anybody else.

Apparently female violence upon men is funny or of no consequence even when they murder.

Like in the musical scene in Chicago where all the female convicts are singing their songs about why they were all in prison for murdering their husbands: "they had it coming."

I can't picture a similar sentiment about men murdering their wifes being protrayed so blaze, not to mention being a musical.

This is typical.It seems like they are blaming women for going out.

Men are drinking too, Right??? It isn't a new form of seduction. Get her drunk and have his way with her.He is planning that before he says hello,usually.

The responsibility of knowing your limitations is yours but no one has the right to take advantage of you when you are past out.

Men have been doing this for years. Girls that get get rape or gang banged after becoming intoxicated usually go lay down alone and later receive unexpected company.

Guys take advantage and don't care what they have done to her.

I just wrote about this and it still disturbs me the possible dangers we put our self in by drinking and trusting to much.

Hello everybody. I am a man, I came across this post by Jessica and I have such strong feelings about it that I even signed up with this blog to be able to voice my opinion, as it is not possible to do so without registering. Not that I intend to come back after reading this post.

Let me explain.

A news headline is a headline about a newsworthy subject. When something happens - in this instance, something as sad and disgusting as a rising number of rapes, and it is considered newsworthy by a newspaper editor-in-chief, they send out a journalist/reporter to investigate, or they just write an article based on a press release.

Every news story involves a number of factors which come into play. This person did that, this tree fell on that house, this soldier in Iraq shot 2 enemy soldiers. Every news story is at some point in a so-called "thread", which means that at one point in time, it has a start, then it continues to evolve around the given topic. A thread can die as quick as after one day; it can also run for a very long time.

An example: A couple of years ago, the U.S. Congress approved the Patriot Act. As soon as that became public, it became a thread. The media reported about what the Patriot Act was and what it did. They did that for some time until it was common knowledge what the Patriot Act is. "Common knowledge" means that people know what it is about.

In the lifeline of that particular thread, whenever the Patriot Act is mentioned today, you won't find an explanation of any sort. It is being referred to by its title and an explanation is considered redundant and worthless, as it has been repeated and explained to an absolute abundance by the time the thread started. Why say over and over again what it is about?

You know the answer. 1) There is only so much real estate in a newspaper, and only so much time in a news show, 2) Everybody knows what the Patriot Act is. It is common knowledge, and 3) People have only so much time to consume news.

Now why, Jessica, do you feel that it has to be mentioned that men are involved in rapes? Is that news to you?

There are two involved parties, or factors, in the above news story, as well as an action, or happening, and a cause. In today's world, with readers demanding and getting quick, short, and abstract news, because they have little time and there is an overflow of information, what do you think are the most important parts of the above?

It happens to be a natural fact that men are involved in rapes. Before you start cherry-picking again, "natural" does not legitimize a rape but refers to the two sexes involved. The newsworthy, because new, part of the above story is that there is a rise in rapes due to young women drinking too much. That is what the story is about. Everybody knows that men are involved. It is not necessary to highlight a given fact, especially since it provides no new information, nor does it educate the reader in any way. The reader already knows that rapes are caused by men.

Your attempt, Jessica, to patronize the reader and assume he or she is stupid, is going off in the wrong direction. Your cause is a legit one and I happen to be married to a wonderful and amazing woman with whom I share many, very interesting discussions about the undervaluation of women in today's world. Your war drum is not only unnecessary, it also places you in a corner where I know you don't want to be. You cherry-pick your news based on a good cause, but you use the absolute wrong method.

Your goal is to be respected as equal to men. I say, you are equal, so please act that way and don't cherry-pick your battles. Take off your pink glasses for a change and encourage discussions about happenings that are really worth talking about, and that emphasize your intelligence and push your cause. Your above post doesn't do that - it does quite the contrary. With the above, you are on a fast track to being perceived as a blind-folded zealot with a limited mind, and you undermine not only this community's reputation, but also the reputation of women in general.

I, as a first-time reader of this website, read your post and am unable to take you seriously. If I were not so educated as I pride myself to be, and as my wife takes care that I am, I would extend that to all women.

You did not help your cause with this post.

Thank you Robert :)

Hey, RobertA, don't try to patronize the reader, or assume we are stupid- it kind of goes off in the wrong direction.

Wait, Robert_A! Don't leave yet! You forgot to tell Jessica what sort of things she should be talking about!
Nobody puts Jessica in a corner!

Robert,

I say, you are equal, so please act that way.

Wow, thanks, daddy!

On top of it, oh my, you're a heterosexual man and you're married to a woman!? Why, that's even better than having black friends, isn't it?

I say, you have grey matter in that skull, so please act that way.

Seriously, though, read what Jessica has written, as I think you thoroughly missed the point. She picking this out as yet another example (there are many on this site alone - use the search box) of what is called "victim-blaming," where responsibility for a crime (in this case, and many cases, rape) is placed on the victim rather than the assailant. Check it out, read up some more on the phenomenon. Even one so rich with experience and wisdom as yourself may learn something.

I am a feminist proud and true but I also consider myself fair and educated. As one I want equal rights not favoritism. I want to get paid the same as a man because my degree cost the same. Better yet, I can work just as hard and be just as productive as any man. In some cases my "sisters" are the head of house hoods with families to support and raise.

Our mission to eliminate political, social, and professional discrimination against all women.

The article Jessica has written was based on a short story not the editorial. Which was all written by a female with facts from females.
Rape the definition is :
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
tr.v. raped, rap·ing, rapes
1. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.
2. To seize and carry off by force.
3. To plunder or pillage.

There is also same sex rapes.
Read the article from the Union Tribune by Kristina Davis. It is very informative.
The man who has comment see's that.
This isn't about our issues.
For something that was taught to us in High School(10th grade) unless you failed Health class.

Unless you skipped class, you would have learned the effects on alcohol.

It is about women drinking to irresponsibly. That is a blast to us women who are productively preforming daily. We know our drinking limitations and have a responsibility to ourselves,
So it is irrelevant to the feminist movement, even counterproductive, because we want control and don't want to lose it.
For something that was taught to us in High School(10th grade) unless you failed Health class.
Unless you skipped class, you would have learned the effects on alcohol.
So it is irreverent and juvenile to the our mission but important factor to us as women.

Bottom line we want control! Too much alcohol makes all of us lose control.
Word Up Youngster,Been there done that.
find something worth while to support ( like equality)and stop the drinking.

Shouldn't we be discussing the morality of the men who raped her rather than how much alcohol she had drank? Am I the only one appalled that men think its perfectly legitimate to force someone to have sex with them because she's drunk? I mean, what the fuck? They fucking attacked her! And you want us to what? Apologise that she wasn't like walking like a little deer with her fucking ears pricked up! You fucking assholes, I hope all these fags fucking burn.