REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

WSJ Editor: Intoxicated Sexual Assault Victims Are Just As Guilty As Their Attackers

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, February 21, 2014 23:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3467
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:33 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Wall Street Journal editor James Taranto claimed that cases of "'sexual assault' on campus" that involve alcohol are really victimless crimes in which both parties are equally guilty.

In his February 10 WSJ column, Taranto baselessly argued that men are often unfairly accused in sexual assault cases on college campuses, particularly when both men and women involved in the case were drinking :
Quote:
What is called the problem of "sexual assault" on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike.

[...]

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

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser's having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt ... In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that "if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other." In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304558804579374844
067975558

How asinine is that? The problem isn't drunken college kids HAVING SEX, it is SEXUAL ABUSE...as in somebody gets forced, somebody gets hurt, and it sure as hell ain't the guy!

He does make some valid points about cases where both parties were so drunk the girl didn't remember what happened the next day but then claimed rape, and that's something that should be discussed. But that doesn't change his argument.
Quote:
While it is true that reckless alcohol consumption can play a role in encouraging damaging behavior, and that male and female college students (particularly underage students) could probably benefit from learning to moderate their drinking for a variety of reasons, Taranto's accusation that women who drink -- and then are forced to have sex against their will -- are not only equally at fault for their assault but are guilty of an equivalent crime takes victim blaming to a new and dangerous low.

Taranto's victim-blaming approach furthers his attempts to disingenuously redefine the problem of sexual assault as a problem of alcohol. The problem of sexual assault on college campuses, as elsewhere, is entirely a problem of sexual assault, in which a victim does not consent to sexual relations with the aggressor. Studies have shown that alcohol consumption doesn't cause sexual assault, nor does it serve as a defense. According to a literature review from the National Institutes of Health:
Quote:
The fact that alcohol consumption and sexual assault frequently co-occur does not demonstrate that alcohol causes sexual assault.

[...]

[M]en are legally and morally responsible for acts of sexual assault they commit, regardless of whether or not they were intoxicated or felt that the woman had led them on previously. The fact that a woman's alcohol consumption may increase their likelihood of experiencing sexual assault does not make them responsible for the man's behavior, although such information may empower women when used in prevention programs.

Other studies similarly found that some college men who acknowledge committing sexual assault -- which included 25 percent of male students surveyed -- may have used alcohol to "have an excuse for their behavior." Other variables, like peer pressure, "may lead some men both to drink heavily and to commit sexual assault," but the researchers found no evidence to place the blame solely on the presence of alcohol.

Moreover, just because both women and men are drinking in a particular situation does not necessarily place them on equal footing. As Ann Friedman has noted, "The biological reality is that women do not metabolize alcohol the same way as men do, and that means drink for drink women will get drunker faster." The idea that women who get drunk and then are forced into nonconsensual sexual experiences are equally at fault in the situation misses the reality of assault, particularly as it involves physical force of some kind in a majority of cases.

The insistence that victims are equally responsible for their assault contributes to a dangerous stigmatization which keeps many victims from reporting these crimes -- particularly because victims who do report can become the targets of vicious attacks. Previously, Taranto's victim-blaming has included insisting that efforts to address the growing problem of sexual assault are attacks on men and male sexuality.

But no matter how many times he uses the WSJ to blame victims and push sexist attacks, his concern that women take advantage of using alcohol to falsely accuse men of assault just doesn't match the facts. According to the FBI, people falsely report sexual assault at the same low rate as other comparable crimes: only 3 percent of the time. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/10/wsj-editor-intoxicated-sexual-
assault-victims-a/198007

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:23 PM

BYTEMITE


Both parties are equally guilty only if both parties are equally drunk.

It is not ever a victimless crime though. Not for the victim and not for every attacker.

We really have to change the mindset surrounding consent issues. They are problematic and lead people to get into trouble because they're willing to take that much risk just to "get some." The sex isn't that important.

Quote:
as in somebody gets forced, somebody gets hurt, and it sure as hell ain't the guy!


Let's not make this a gender specific thing. Sometimes it IS the guy who is plied with alcohol. And it is just as wrong in that case. Not giving credit to male victims perpetuates cultural abuse and stereotypes against males and the belief that males CAN'T be victims. They definitely can.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:36 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


"Both parties are equally guilty only if both parties are equally drunk." I disagree. If it's just sex, that's valid, but if one party FORCES himself/herself on another, no, I don't give a shit who's drunker, it's simply assault. Surely you're not saying that two people get completely smashed, the guy FORCEABLY RAPES the woman, and they're both equally at fault??

Also, as study after study has shown, forced rape isn't about the sex, it's about power.

And while I know sex is unimportant to you, it has many permutations when we're talking about colleges and college-age men and women…peer pressure, status, and a whole bunch of other things. I for one am not going to judge how important anything is to someone else whose situation I don't know.

Lastly, the article also stated:
Quote:
If Taranto is concerned about the treatment of men in such cases, he could have written about male sexual assault victims, who are a smaller but nevertheless important portion of victims. But when men are sexually assaulted the perpetrator is usually also male; in fact, 98 percent of all perpetrators are male. The "double standard" Taranto is worried about, in which men are more often the accused, isn't a double standard at all -- it's just reality.


Given that the incidence of males being plied with alcohol to have sex is damned small compared to the other way around, I'm afraid I'm not giving that too much weight. Unquestionably it happens; equally unquestionably, the percentage is miniscule in comparison.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:48 PM

BYTEMITE


If both people are drunk, neither one is able to give consent, provided they both are in that state where they are passively going along with the situation as it develops as opposed to choosing it. Thus equal guilt.

Obviously, if one person is actively assertive and the other person is resisting or unable to resist, then the aggressor is at fault no matter how drunk they are.

Quote:
And while I know sex is unimportant to you, it has many permutations when we're talking about colleges and college-age men and women…peer pressure, status, and a whole bunch of other things.


Which is stupid as all hell. See again the "it's not actually that important" argument. Which is what these kids need to get into their heads. THAT more than anything will be what changes how people approach these situations. And that will have a real effect on reducing the problem.

Quote:

Given that the incidence of males being plied with alcohol to have sex is damned small compared to the other way around, I'm afraid I'm not giving that too much weight. Unquestionably it happens; equally unquestionably, the percentage is miniscule in comparison.


That's not what you said. You said it's ALWAYS the girl who is getting hurt. The percentage of male victims in COLLEGE ASSAULT CASES might be small (it is NOT small in certain other circumstances), but saying only the girl can be a victim and we should only focus on the women is simply not correct.

Also, keep in mind that male victims report even less than female victims do. And female victims are unlikely to report as it is.

Simply, rape victims are rape victims. No need to favour one gender of victims over the other.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 15, 2014 1:30 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.




It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 15, 2014 1:53 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thank you, KPO.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:11 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Ah, yes. Another Mediamatters "Take a couple of sentences out of context and spin them into something hardly resembling the original" article. Helped by NIKI doing the same thing.

I'd advise anyone reading this thread to read the entire WSJ article before making up their minds about the validity of NIKI's claims.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:11 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Ah, yes. Another Mediamatters "Take a couple of sentences out of context and spin them into something hardly resembling the original" article. Helped by NIKI doing the same thing.

I'd advise anyone reading this thread to read the entire WSJ article before making up their minds about the validity of NIKI's claims.



And the war on women continues...

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:10 AM

OONJERAH



Can I safely assume that Mr. Taranto is running for Congress?


====================== :>
All I suggest is a rapist hears what his dick wants to hear and disregards the rest.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:50 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


All I suggest is a rapist hears what his dick wants to hear and disregards the rest.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 17, 2014 11:11 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Ah, yes. Another Mediamatters "Take a couple of sentences out of context and spin them into something hardly resembling the original" article. Helped by NIKI doing the same thing.

I'd advise anyone reading this thread to read the entire WSJ article before making up their minds about the validity of NIKI's claims.

Which of Niki's claims? Niki quoted directly from the article, and her comments seemed fair to me.

The media matters article, maybe, is reading too much into the meaning of Taranto's words. He doesn't outright 'victim blame', but he does make some strange, ambiguous comments (referring to sexual assault claims as men and women drunkenly 'colliding', and then the man being blamed).

Or do you find no fault with the article Geezer?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Which of Niki's claims?


Quote:
WSJ Editor:Intoxicated Sexual Assault Victims Are Just As Guilty As Their Attackers.

Wall Street Journal editor James Taranto claimed that cases of "'sexual assault' on campus" that involve alcohol are really victimless crimes in which both parties are equally guilty.

In his February 10 WSJ column, Taranto baselessly argued that men are often unfairly accused in sexual assault cases on college campuses, particularly when both men and women involved in the case were drinking :


The article started with an example of two college students who had been drinking engaging in what a prosecutor and grand jury determined (after the girl filed charges) was consensual sex, and the male being expelled from college with no input, and even after the prosecutor pled his case with the administration.

It then covered an example of involuntary sexual assault where the male (since charged with aggravated rape) attacked, choked, and raped an inebriated young woman heading home from a party.

So he's obviously not saying that all sexual assaults on campus are "victimless".

The there is a discussion of "bystander intervention". Common sense stuff like making sure a drunk person gets in a cab for home rather than going off with other people, or stopping someone pawing a girl who's faculties are obviously impaired.

After all this, what apparently gets NIKI is the "colliding" paragraph. Taken out of context, it could be problematic. In the context of the entire article (where he provides examples of both consensual behavior and sexual assault), it seems that he's not talking about where one person is a unwilling participant, but about situations where both parties are consenting, although somewhat impaired.

He also notes that, as shown in the story in the first paragraphs of the article, males are usually the ones who end up in trouble if their sexual partner - even if consenting at the time - later has second thoughts.

So it looks to me that, rather than blaming drunk women for being victims of sexual assault, he's warning young men that they are more likely to get in trouble, however unjustly, for a drunken sexual encounter than girls are, and so should be more careful.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:22 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


BTW: Illustrated Guide to Criminal Law has an interesting section on rape, starting here:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1228


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:02 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
It then covered an example of involuntary sexual assault where the male (since charged with aggravated rape) attacked, choked, and raped an inebriated young woman heading home from a party.

Yes, as if to remind us what 'real' rape is - men jumping out from bushes on women walking home alone at night... Except most rapes are not like this. (By the way where do you get that she was 'inebriated'? The article says that she was heading home from a party, it doesn't say how inebriated, if at all, she was. Are you making assumptions?)

Quote:
After all this, what apparently gets NIKI is the "colliding" paragraph. Taken out of context, it could be problematic. In the context of the entire article (where he provides examples of both consensual behavior and sexual assault)

He provides no example of a woman being sexually assaulted (i.e. against her will) when she is drunk. He never acknowledges the possibility. He only talks about women engaging in drunk consensual sex, and then regretting it and alleging sexual assault in the morning. As if that were the main, or even the full picture, behind the epidemic of sexual assault allegations.

Quote:
it seems that he's not talking about where one person is a unwilling participant, but about situations where both parties are consenting

The problem is he does his best to conflate the two. As he says: "What is called the problem of "sexual assault" on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike." His message seems to be that the high volume of alleged sexual assaults is not a problem in itself, but is really just an inevitable part of (what he calls 'reckless') drinking/partying culture.

An important insight into this article writer's mind comes from this tweet he sent after the Aurora mass shooting:

Quote:
"I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice".

If that's not the quote of a woman-hating douche I don't know what is.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:20 AM

BYTEMITE


Ahh... It's not a Fireflyfans discussion about rape unless everything everyone says is offensive to someone.

Seriously though, I don't want to hear anyone saying something is or isn't "real" rape. Whether it's stupid drunken "consensual" sex rape, or the rarer violent masher in the bushes rape. Rape is rape.

The guy who wrote the article might be a woman hating douchebag, that's not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

What is relevant is that there IS an epidemic of drinking related non-consent issues, tacitly encouraged by a mindset that this is the way of things so go and get that sloppy drunk and score, and that people speaking out about it are awful killjoys stealing the life and freedom of youth to experiment.

No. We are not. That culture and misconception is foolishness. It's way more fun to respect people enough to err on the side of caution. If someone gets drunk, they should end up with a hangover and fuzzy memories of wearing their pants on their head, not a terrified fear that they might have had sex and someone might be pregnant or that they might go to jail.

Because RAPE is NOT fun. And nothing is worth that, not peer pressure or a joke or lark for the night. If everyone treated groping and sex and drunken sex seriously, as though any time it could potentially be rape, there'd be a whole lot less of it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:16 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
The guy who wrote the article might be a woman hating douchebag, that's not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

You don't see that it is?

Quote:
a mindset that this is the way of things so go and get that sloppy drunk and score, and that people speaking out about it are awful killjoys stealing the life and freedom of youth to experiment.

I've nothing against people speaking out against it, if that's what they want to do. I am against equating casual sex with rape. It's not a crime to like casual sex. You can be the kind of guy who would never lift a finger against a woman, and never force her to do anything against her will, and still like to hook up for casual sex. What happened to the idea that rape is not to do with sex, and people failing to rein in their passions; but about control - men getting off on having complete power over a woman?

Quote:
not a terrified fear that they might have had sex and someone might be pregnant or that they might go to jail.

Failure to use contraception/practice safe sex is not unique to when people have been raped. People might have drunk sex and regret not using a condom - but not regret the sex itself. Drunk sex is risky for these reasons, and people should be educated about these risks. But we're talking about something completely separate to rape now.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:58 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Yes, as if to remind us what 'real' rape is - men jumping out from bushes on women walking home alone at night... Except most rapes are not like this. (By the way where do you get that she was 'inebriated'? The article says that she was heading home from a party, it doesn't say how inebriated, if at all, she was. Are you making assumptions?)


Your ability to take things out of context to fit your preconceptions is almost as amazing as NIKI's and Mediamatters', as is your ability to miss the fact that in an article about the problems of inebriated college students, one would expect that the stories would be about folks who were drunk.

Have fun with yourself.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:09 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Ahh... It's not a Fireflyfans discussion about rape unless everything everyone says is offensive to someone.

Seriously though, I don't want to hear anyone saying something is or isn't "real" rape. Whether it's stupid drunken "consensual" sex rape, or the rarer violent masher in the bushes rape. Rape is rape.


So at what point of drinking does sex become "consensual" sex rape?

A fine dinner and split a bottle of wine?

Pizza and a couple of six-packs?

A few red cups of Everclear punch?

How do you know when consent isn't really consent?

How do you know "Yes" doesn't really mean "Yes" - especially if you've been drinking too?

That's the thing that prosecutors, grand juries, and courts have to figure out. Trying to make that decision on incomplete information is risky.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:20 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:


Your ability to take things out of context to fit your preconceptions is almost as amazing as NIKI's and Mediamatters',



You left yourself off the list...




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:21 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Following a link in the WSJ story, here's more articles you "they're blaming the victim" folks can sink your teeth into.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/10/sexual_assault_
and_drinking_teach_women_the_connection.html


http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/10/18/rape_culture_and_binge
_drinking_emily_yoffe_responds_to_her_critics.html


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:22 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:


Your ability to take things out of context to fit your preconceptions is almost as amazing as NIKI's and Mediamatters',



You left yourself off the list...



Fine example of trolling, Story.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:59 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Totally depends on the situation. I want sobriety tests done on both parties, stat!

Nope....... you can only test for Pot 6 weeks after the fact....

You're seriously dumb if you trust any good looking female under 35 years old today Niki.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:20 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So at what point of drinking does sex become "consensual" sex rape?


I think I pretty clearly implied what I thought with that description, and it hasn't changed from the last thread. Any amount of alcohol involved means you're taking a risk and you have to ask yourself the non-consent question. If inhibitions are lowered, judgement is impaired, and consent is questionable. And some people are lightweights.

Quote:
How do you know "Yes" doesn't really mean "Yes" - especially if you've been drinking too?

That's the thing that prosecutors, grand juries, and courts have to figure out. Trying to make that decision on incomplete information is risky.



I'm just pushing for the most common sense solution - if you think they've had any amount of drinks, just don't do it.

Because then it IS for the courts to decide.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:27 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
You don't see that it is?


No, because again, it's not just a women's issue.

And on that note, does it seem like I particularly like anyone, of any gender? In what way is that relevant to the discussion?

Quote:
I am against equating casual sex with rape.


What you do when drunk is different from what you might do "casually" and soberly, there are different concerns and different consequences. I want to divorce these two concepts because they are NOT the same thing.

Quote:
But we're talking about something completely separate to rape now.


As I've said before, in some countries that is NOT completely separate, and it's certainly more on topic than whether someone is a misogynist or merely a misanthrope.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:31 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

You're seriously dumb if you trust any good looking female under 35 years old today




...Well, it's a start. I encourage you to go preach that to other men your age and younger. If we can't appeal to human compassion or to enlightened self-interest, we can surely use fear and hatred of women.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:13 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
one would expect that the stories would be about folks who were drunk.

So you were assuming.

Quote:
Your ability to take things out of context to fit your preconceptions is almost as amazing as NIKI's and Mediamatters'

Let he who is without his own flagrant bias cast the first stone.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:20 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
No, because again, it's not just a women's issue.

Not exclusively, no, but the statistics show that this isn't remotely a 'gender neutral' issue.

Quote:
And on that note, does it seem like I particularly like anyone, of any gender? In what way is that relevant to the discussion?

It's not, that I can think of. The writer however is weighing into a discussion on rape allegations. By dismissing their seriousness in the way he is doing he is taking the side of the alleged perpetrators, mostly men, against their accusers, mainly women.

Quote:
Quote:
I am against equating casual sex with rape.


What you do when drunk is different from what you might do "casually" and soberly, there are different concerns and different consequences. I want to divorce these two concepts because they are NOT the same thing.

Ok I am against drunk casual sex being equated with rape.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:35 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Not exclusively, no, but the statistics show that this isn't remotely a 'gender neutral' issue.


The statistics are skewed by cultural values, circumstances, and gender stereotypes. Neither gender of victim tends to report it, but male victims get a particularly short end of the stick and might even deny they were victimized. It stems from the argument that used to claim that men COULDN'T be raped, and it's wrong.

And that's without getting into the prison system, where male victims are common.

I ALWAYS use gender neutral terms, because if you don't, it denies psychological validation to people who already have to struggle so hard to get it.

Quote:
It's not, that I can think of. The writer however is weighing into a discussion on rape allegations.


Like I said, so am I, and I hate everyone. It's not relevant.

Quote:
Ok I am against drunk casual sex being equated with rape.


Drunk is inherently questionable. Why equate drunk with casual? Why even accept grey moral territory into your concept of fun?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:34 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
The statistics are skewed by cultural values, circumstances, and gender stereotypes. Neither gender of victim tends to report it, but male victims get a particularly short end of the stick and might even deny they were victimized.


Well in terms of the actual allegations that are out there men are the overwhelming offenders (that goes for prison too btw), so any tightening of sexual assault law will penalise primarily male offenders over their primarily female (excluding prison) accusers. Or the opposite for a tightening of the law. That's the point that I'm trying to make.

Quote:
Like I said, so am I, and I hate everyone.

At least that's equal.

Quote:
Why equate drunk with casual?

I don't?

Quote:
Why even accept grey moral territory into your concept of fun?

Hmm. Well I don't, first of all. But there are different shades of moral greyness here. Consider these two scenarios, that I both consider to be much less than rape:

1. A man sleeps with a woman he meets at a bar - a complete stranger. They've both had a few drinks. She is very enthusiastic about sleeping with him (maybe even initiates it). In the morning she regrets it. In my view the man has not done anything morally wrong - so long as he has no reason to suspect that the woman is doing something she might regret (so for e.g. she doesn't have a wedding ring on her finger)

2. Similar scenario to the one above, but maybe the man knows the woman a little, and knows that she's acting out of character when she's drunkenly flirting with him. But he decides not to pass up the opportunity to sleep with her. He's acted immorally, and taken advantage of her. Would I criminalise this behaviour or equate it to rape? No. Just like I wouldn't criminalise the married man who lies to a woman about not having a wife to get her to sleep with him.

I know you see it differently, but that's how I see it. There's a whole spectrum of immorality before you get anywhere near rape.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:43 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
That's the point that I'm trying to make.


But it's not the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion is whether there might be a better way of framing public perception of the issue to reduce rape.

Both genders can be raped, both genders have to be involved in any effort we might make. It is not a single gender issue.

Quote:
Hmm. Well I don't, first of all.


You did. You kind of still do, judging by your reaction. You think "drunk" is a viable strategy to achieve some manner of casual intimate recreational activity and it shouldn't be taken off the table, plus it makes things extra fun. I think it makes things dangerous and unacceptable and it is taking advantage of someone at a weakened moment. Always. Whether they are acquaintances or strangers.

Therefore, making "drunk" such an important kind of "casual" for this and protecting the behaviour is inherently morally grey. And I strongly suggest you reconsider your internal calculations and conclusions.

Your scenarios:

For the first one, the fact that the woman is drunk is reason enough to suspect she might regret it.

For the second I would consider that rape, but I'm gratified to know that you at least consider it immoral.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:00 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
Following a link in the WSJ story, here's more articles you "they're blaming the victim" folks can sink your teeth into.

From the first link:

"Let’s be totally clear: Perpetrators are the ones responsible for committing their crimes, and they should be brought to justice."

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:07 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
But it's not the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion is whether there might be a better way of framing public perception of the issue to reduce rape.

We were also talking about whether a man who hates woman might be biased in this discussion. So I was pointing out that current rape allegations are gender-skewed in a particular way (with males as the offenders).

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:21 PM

BYTEMITE


Both can perpetrate it, both can be victims, so I don't understand why we're bothering to specify one or the other. Gender doesn't and shouldn't matter, it's a horrible thing either way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:27 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


spooky deja vu feelings

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Following a link in the WSJ story, here's more articles you "they're blaming the victim" folks can sink your teeth into.

From the first link:

"Let’s be totally clear: Perpetrators are the ones responsible for committing their crimes, and they should be brought to justice."


Did you read the second link, which noted the responses the first one got?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:55 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by G:
*stops, looks at camera as if to speak... then turns and keeps walking*


Probably wise.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 21, 2014 11:52 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Following a link in the WSJ story, here's more articles you "they're blaming the victim" folks can sink your teeth into.

From the first link:

"Let’s be totally clear: Perpetrators are the ones responsible for committing their crimes, and they should be brought to justice."


Did you read the second link, which noted the responses the first one got?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."


I've read both of the articles. I understand the critics but I mostly side with Yoffe. It's not victim blaming to tell young women to be careful. The initial title is provocative though.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 19:17 - 3 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 19:05 - 1 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:13 - 7497 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts
The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts
The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:05 - 4762 posts
Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts
MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL