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 t