Sometimes, The Times publishes columnists that are so awful I have to take a step away from them, go and clear my head and think about all the lovely things there are in the world and how the Times is a conservative Newspaper but today they published a column that goes past even their brand of misogynistic tospotness.
India Knight's charmingly titled "Face it, Girls - A drunken Romp isn't Rape" in which the author doubts the validity of date rape and uses her column to publically shame a woman who reported her rape by a drunken friend. Despite the fact that Indian Knight acknowledges there was no consent, and that the woman was too drunk to know what she was doing, and that there is a law in place to prosecute these type of rapes her argument is that the woman just didn't like the guy she woke up with.
I used to like India Knight when she moonlighted at the Independent. Now I realise she didn't deserve my attention at all.
This is not unusual for The Times, today it's leading Lifestyle article is about sex - "Are Women Sexually Liberated or Just Confused?" I don't think you need to guess what they think.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Times on Date Rape.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12793
This just made me so fucking angry. I really just wanna write a comment to that saying "you're a fucking asshole"
but i know thats probably not a good idea.
much too angry honey
Wow... I was hoping it was just one idiot columnist, but then I read the comments, and most of them were telling the author how well she did at writing the article! Something is obviously wrong with what we as a society are teaching people if this can be written, and then the comments be overly positive for it!
I find a lot in this article repellent.
But two people getting completely shitcanned and having sex doesn't strike me as rape. Even if it's someone you don't especially like "the next morning." However, how would such a thing ever be proven either way? How could a jury distinguish between a case where someone was a little drunk but genuinely resisting sex, and a case where someone was all over someone else from the time they left a party/wherever to the time they got home, and just couldn't remember that they were going "yes yes yes" after the fact?
If someone who is drunk cannot give consent, and both parties are drunk, I think there should probably be a canceling-out of...drunkenness. However, again, there's still the issue of what happens to people who are at a party, get a little drunk (or a lot) and end up being cornered and raped. It is hard to protect these people because juries (and Times columnists) are going to assume they were simply drunk out of their minds and were actually telling their rapist "oh go ahead."
I completely agree. A lot of things in this article are revolting, but I've always objected to calling this specific situation rape: The idea that if even both partners are equally drunk and they both "consent" to sex (even though yes, their drunken state invalidates that consent) then this consitutes a rape--a rape of whom?!? Which partner? Both doesn't make any sense and picking one over the other based on gender seems really arbitrary, wrong, and kinda sexist.
This isn't to say that rape never occurs when both parties are drunk. Yes, even though being drunk invalidates consent it sure as hell doesn't invalidate non-consent.
Is that a sentence?
Excellent point. I'm generally appalled by the article (especially her tone and dismissive attitude toward date-rape) but legally, I think some elements of her argument are compelling.
I live in a (US) state where (at least the last time I checked) sex between two consenting drunk partners constitutes rape of the female partner by the male partner, should the female choose to press charges (on the grounds that drunkenness negates consent, but only for women). (Sodomy laws were still on the books when I learned this in high school sex-ed 8 years ago--its the South--so as you can guess, my understanding of this law only applies to heterosexuals).
These sorts of rape are hopelessly difficult to parse, because the law really has no power to differentiate between predatory behavior and (albeit probably rare) cases of morning-after-remorse-turned-false-accusation. Therefore, I agree that this law (even if it may put more real rapists behind bars) is fundamentally flawed and sexist.
But the trick is, what to do in these cases? It is probably unrealistic to expect people to stop having sex while drunk. My school's (awful) abstinence-only sex-ed program used this law to scare us males away from having sex with intoxicated women (which worked, at least for me). In general that might be a good thing BUT it creates the added consequences that 1) it diminished the credibility of real date-rape, since it created a false perception that anyone can "accidentally" become a date-rapist via a "mistake" and 2) it lets the state take a portion of women's sexual autonomy away from them.
On the other hand, allowing drunkenness to invalidate consent for both parties creates a vacuum where some actual rape cannot be prosecuted legally if both parties (including a rapist) can claim to be too drunk to remember it. Since in heterosexual sex, rapists are overwhelmingly male, the law makes sense, at least ALMOST.
(I should point out, I'm a victim of date-rape by a woman, so I don't mean to be dismissive of male victims of heterosexual rape, I just understand that statistically, we are an outlier. How should the law treat us?)
All told, I'm not sure how the law should handle this, or even what an "orthodox" feminist perspective (if one could be said to exist) on this law would be.
Yeah, this is a conversation that always leaves me quite unsatisfied. I'm not going to say anything about this or anybody's case and I'm not going to victim blame.
But I do know what I going to teach my kids one day. And that is that very little good comes when mixing alcohol abuse (extreme consumption) and sexual activity. I have rape stats backing me up on this. We as a society can do a lot of good by educating and stigmatizing (through caring peer pressure and a buddy system much like designated drivers or something) this behavior in men and women, instead of encouraging it.
Not to mention the fact that even regular condom users are less likely to use protection when they have been heavily drinking; birth control pills go missed, etc. The little bit of fun folks think there are having---times up on this, seriously. As a society, it's really not worth it. If we maintain the status quo on this more women and men are going to be victimized. And for what? And do not count on the legal system to be of any help here.
No denying it's very hard when both parties are drunk, but at the same time this woman obviously feels she was raped. I find India Knight writing a column basically telling her that her feelings don't matter is a really problamatical thing to do.
Absolutely.
There have been situations, I'm sure, in which someone wasn't raped and yet feels as if they were. The example I mentioned above for instance--both people are drunk, both consent without coercion in the moment, and then in the aftermath one or both parties feel violated. Is that rape? I don't think so. Is there any legal recourse? Hell no. Are the individuals involved justified in feeling a violation? Yes. Do they deserve counseling services for those feelings of violation? Absolutely!
Hmm, very reasonable. I like the idea of separating legal recourse from admitting that it could actually hurt someone. I've been having so much trouble with these types of situations. Being a guy, it is incredibly frustrating (I'm pretty sure there are drunken cancel-consent law thingys in New Jersey where I go to school) to think that one night of frolicking could fuck me for the rest of my life if she decides she really needs the money. Don't get me wrong, I highly doubt anyone in college would do that. Which is also why I'm really hesitant to NOT call it rape. But, at the same time, if even one guy has been sent to jail when he shouldn't have, then it's pretty fucked up, no matter how many rapists have been locked up as a result of these laws to "make up for it". And, seriously, no one can possibly change my mind on that one.
That makes sense. But considering the alarming number of people who are guilty of rape that never even get arrested--let alone tried and convicted-- it makes me doubt this situation would occur often, if ever. (my favorite (depressing) stats site: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates)
A relative of mine was accused of raping someone. He and she had both gotten drunk, they apparently had sex several times between the bedroom and bathroom, they ate breakfast the next morning, and he drove her to her dorm. She went to the police and filed a report. He was arrested and held over night. He volunteered to take a lie detector test and he showed the officers an explicit note she had left him previously. The police told this to her, and she decided not to press charges.
I watched him in agony over this. I believe him. I believe the sex was as consensual as a drunken encounter could be. I really do. But I also believe that even if their sexual encounter wasn't rape, she probably believed at the time that she was and she was still likely suffering for a while as though it had been. I mean, just reporting it to the police--that takes a whole hell of a lot of guts. High amounts of false rape reports are kinda a myth, and a dangerous myth at that--taking credence away from the victims and lending too much credibility to the perpetrators.
dude, it's not about you. If you're so worried, then don't sleep with a drunk girl. I can and do acutally believe that amount of intoxication, not gender should be the standard for rape-the more sober one should be responsible enough to think about what you're both doing, whatever type of genetailia they have. That said, all this "she could claim rape" b.s. is just a red herring. If she forces you to do anything that she could claim rape for, she's raping you. If not, you have a choice. get over yourself.
I think the problem with focusing on the "drunken romp" situation as the defining example of date rape draws the focus away from the real issues in date rape and allows people a reason to blame the victim and perpetuate myths about women, sex, and drinking. It's a little bit like the anti-choicers focusing on late-term abortion as an example of why abortion is evil: it clouds the issue and erects strawpeople to be torn down.
Considering the appallingly low rate of reporting for all rapes, and even lower rate for acquaintance and date rapes, the idea that someone is going to wake up in the morning after having had drunken sex and just decide to report it as a rape on a whim is kind of ludicrous. Arguing otherwise ignores the reality most rape victims face when making the difficult decision to report in the first place. And arguing that false rape reports by women who regret a drunken sexual escapade are so common as to be a problem is flat out dangerous and perpetuates the myth that women who are drinking really want sex, even if they say otherwise.
Although I did find the article on date rape pretty horrible, I found the other article ("Are Women Sexually Liberated or Just Confused?") pretty thoughtful; in fact, I agree a lot with its view (which, I believe, it is that women are more confused than really sexually liberated).
I found there were good quotes, but felt that the article was uneven. I agreed with a lot of what it had to say about how women are pressured into trying to be a type of sexy, and the media pushing the image of perfect sex, but I felt the author was always going to seek out arguments that meet the hypothesis that the Times was after which was liberalisation and feminism are bad, women had more sex when they were subjected to the home only world of the 1950s.
I found saying women had more sex in the 1950s worrying because it's misleading - marital rape was fine, grey area sex because your husband said you should was fine and that's not even discussing if the sex was any good. Just because there was more sex doesn't make it better, and doesn't mean women's needs were being met anymore then they are now. It was a deliberate piece of misdirection.
Yeah, I agree with your point. I found the comparison between now and the 1950s totally misleading.
I have to agree with the author of the original article---women are expected to use common sense. If you are both drinking, then you are responsible for putting yourself in a stupid position....the fact that you don't like the end result does not negate the fact that you did it to yourself.
Really? Drinking means it doesn't matter if you don't consent? Fascinating, tell me more.
"you are responsible for putting yourself in a stupid position" and the skirt was too short, and the ally was too dark and you were too alone.
How about Don't Have Sex With Drunk People?
"Really? Drinking means it doesn't matter if you don't consent? Fascinating, tell me more."
From this example it seems it's more a matter of if you can remember whether or not you consented(or had sex at all).
Look, darling....If i go walking in North Philly carrying a visible bag of cash---it might not s'posed to be stolen but it's gonna be. Any cop in their right mind would tell me I was stupid.
I go drinking in a room full of men who are drinking---Chances are good that I might say yes and not remember it. Chances are equally good that if I say yes and change my mind halfway through he ain't agonna have the self-control to stop. Again, my bad. Maybe he should stop if I ask, but since it's my twat, I need to be the one to protect it....just like birth control is MY responsibility, because ultimately I'm the one who gets pregnant.
See: Ideal reality does not abrogate responsibility in the real world. If you go walking alone at night, go armed. .45 ACP is a great force equalizer. Don't let your safety depend on what should happen.......If you go drinking, well.....yeah, you get what you asked for.
And before you ask, I've been raped.
If you go walking in a bad area with an obvious wad of cash it raises the chances of your being robbed, and its a stupid thing to do. If you get robbed, the police might tell you it was a stupid thing to do. But it doesn't mean they would decline to treat it as a crime.
But, you see, if I was drinking and said to the guy---yeah, you can hold my cash---and then screamed thief the next morning because I didn't want to lose my money or was ashamed of being drunk------then the guy isn't a thief.
If three people consume 5--yes 5---bottles of wine, no-one can really say what happened.
Hey mamalisa--
Your victim blaming is starting to cross a line. Keep it in check or we'll have to delete your comments.
I've never been a big fan of drunken 'one nighters'. I'm usually too loaded to perform and I hate the awkwardness the next morning. My suggestion is find a girlfriend who enjoys bong hits before fornication. When your done, raid the refrigerator and watch a good movie. I like to keep things simple.
Holy Shit! Best advice evar
This is the kind of attitude that turns women such as myself into recluses fleeing every man who pays us the least bit of attention even to say "hello".
I'm gonna say... It's kind of a mixed bag on what actually happened. My own intuition says that the guy isn't as guilty as 'Miss X' is stating, but then, why would she report him? Is she really that mean spirited? But if he knew going in that he could be convicted of rape, he's a bit of a fool, even if he was smashed... I don't know either of these people, so I can't more effectively judge them, but... I'm just gonna state that my hunch is that they both got very drunk and had sex. I don't think he raped her, and I don't think either had a clear mind on the night they got together.
As for me... I'm one of those people who likes to get drunk and have sex, so... If I were in this situation, and we both got drunk, had sex, forgot it even happened... I'd probably just shrug my shoulders and get on with life.
i also found her definition of adult drinking bizarre, i'm not an adult so i don't know, but in the media there are always stories on teen binge drinking, and what she's describing sounds like that
Besides the whole issue of whether it's rape when two drunken adults have sex, this reminds me again of how dangerous alcohol is on a date or when we are out partying in general. I still vividly remember to this day (and this was years ago) a young woman apparently out by herself totally drunk at a club. Alot of gross men were watching her like vultures around her and it was apparent to anyone after a minute of watching that there was no one watching out for her. If you know you want to drink when you go out, make sure you have friends with you who will watch your back if you are going to get drunk. And if you're on a date, make sure you stop yourself before you get to the point beyond lucidity. I have made that mistake in the past too. But if you keep doing it over and over, you may want to look at what it is that is making you do so.
"if you know you want to drink when you go out, make sure you have friends with you who will watch your back if you are going to get drunk"
I understand being careful but I really tend to bristle at suggestions like this, however well intentioned they may be. No doubt, I follow them in my own life, but there is entirely too much talk about what women should and shouldn't do to prevent a rape. It always makes me think of a fire pamphlet advising how to make your house less flammable should an arsonist come along. Lots of dead trees close by? Big, airy floor plan? You're gonna get burnt!
Rape victim's behavior--particularly women's, since women are seen as a helpless group--does not need to change. A woman should be able to drink a lot and wear whatever the hell she wants and not have to fear rape. Women and men shouldn't have to abide by different standards. To give rape prevention advice makes it sound like there isn't another actor in the situation--the person who would commit the crime.
Obviously, I'm speaking idealistically. I always travel with friends, call when I'm heading somewhere, make sure to keep an eye on my limited number of drinks at all times. I even alter in hopes of attracting less stares and cat calls. But I hate that I have to. Women and men should fear all things easily when they get wasted...like a mugging. I'm still waiting for that mugging pamphlet.
"It always makes me think of a fire pamphlet advising how to make your house less flammable should an arsonist come along. Lots of dead trees close by? Big, airy floor plan? You're gonna get burnt!"
I grew up in one of those canyons in california where wild fires are a big problem (very often caused by arson) and we totally had rules like that. The fire marshall would come by every year and tell you what trees you had to trim, what you had to clear out of your yard, if you had flammable plants growing too close to your house, etc. And you'd get fined if you didn't comply within a certain amount of time.
Mmmmkay. :)
Arsonist = Wild Fires?
There was one guy specifically who went for years without being caught. Apparently he had been refused a post as a fire marshall or investigator or something like that, and so he lit fires every summer for years. They spread like crazy and turn into wildfires (maybe that's the wrong word, but what I mean by it is large fires that spread and burn large areas of land without structures on it, mostly scrub brush in california). For years we had to evacuate every summer, but since he was caught and confessed its gone down to an average of every two or three summers instead. That's just one example.
Two summers ago there was a fire that burned near Santa Barbara in the state park for over a month. It burned thousands of acres and ash was raining for miles around. Last summer there was a fire IN santa barbara that burned lots of acres with actual buildings on them (you may have heard of Ophrah having to evacuate). They don't always find the cause but some number of these start as arson and then spread.
There was a case recently in Malibu where some idiot guys decided to have a campfire and some beers during the height of the summer fire season. The wind blew the fire out of control and they ran away without calling any authorities, and the fire spread and burned a significant portion of Malibu. That may not have been on purpose but it counts as arson and last I heard they were being prosecuted for it.
So yes, a wildfire (a fire that goes out of control burns acres and acres of wild or semi-populated land) can definitely be caused by arson.
(Obviously, some number of them are also caused by things like lightening. I don't know the exact statistics, but a significant number of them are caused by humans who either did it purposely or in the course of breaking safety laws.)
Also, nice job sounding really patronizing about something you clearly don't know much about. Its a fair question and I don't mind elaborating, but did you really need the "mmmmmkay"?
I'm sorry! I wasn't trying to sound patronizing. I just didn't understand what wild fires had to do with my example of arson, that wasn't clear. (I suppose a "huh" would've worked better, but I didn't get the tangent.) Your original comment sounded to me like you were equating fines for those who don't keep their home safe from fires to rape as a punishment for women who overdo their alcohol consumption. I've read your other comments, so I knew that you probably didn't mean the comparison that way, so I thought I'd make a comment to inspire you to elaborate, if you so chose.
I like the arson example because where I'm from there are no ordinances on the upkeep of your home in fire prevention. If your house was destroyed by a fire caused by an arsonist, there is no way anyone would blame you for your house conducting the fire well. So I was equating the idea of receiving blame for the fire to a drunk woman getting blamed for being raped because she was drunk.
I wasn't really equating anything to rape. I just saw you make a statement about fire prevention that I know from experience isn't true, and I wanted to add the relevant information.
No one blames you when your house burns down, but that doesn't mean they don't still encourage fire prevention.
No doubt, I follow them in my own life, but there is entirely too much talk about what women should and shouldn't do to prevent a rape.
I see what you are saying, I really do. And normally I would agree 110%. But alcohol changes the rules.
And I think it's dangerous to continue to give a blanket support for the privilege to abuse alcohol recreationally when the overwhelming evidence points to a link to sexual assaults.
A woman should be able to drink a lot and wear whatever the hell she wants and not have to fear rape.
Well I certainly agree about the clothing part. But try looking at the bigger picture from a public health standpoint. For one thing men are also at higher risk of being sexually assaulted, hazed, put in harms way, etc when abusing alcohol. And there are plenty of other reasons why getting people to see the value of responsible drinking is a good thing all around.
(please note the distinction between alcohol use and abuse)
"And I think it's dangerous to continue to give a blanket support for the privilege to abuse alcohol recreationally when the overwhelming evidence points to a link to sexual assaults. "
I never, ever, ever, blame the victim of a crime. Yes, walking with a lot of cash at night isn't wise Yes, alcohol abuse isn't wise in any situation. But a woman or man drinking alcohol and getting drunk does not BRING a sexual assault upon themselves. The blame lies with the person that saw someone incoherent and drunk and DECIDES to sexually assault them.
That link is there because rapist cowards seek out drunk people to assault. Instead of putting money into campaigns that say "don't get drunk, someone could rape you," we should be funding campaigns that say "assaulting a drunk person is rape. They are not asking for it because they went overboard; you have no right to take advantage of their poor judgment."
And yes, men are more likely to be raped when drunk. But if you look at when this type of advice is given, it is always directed to women. If the advice was saying "No one should get drunk because someone might rape them," I would probably bristle less. But the advice almost always is "Women shouldn't get drunk because a man might rape them" That's giving a different standard of behavior to men and women. If men get plastered at a party, they're having fun. If a woman gets plastered at a party, she's putting herself in danger. WTF?
Rejecting the party culture and alcohol abuse is not the same as blaming. We can still support victims personally and to the full extent that the legal system allows. Really, it's possible to do both, if we really want to.
And actually the alcohol link to rape is two fold. Inhibitions are lowered for both victim and victimizer and judgment is impaired all around. Furthermore the memory loss that some people experience can hinder the legal process.
If men get plastered at a party, they're having fun. If a woman gets plastered at a party, she's putting herself in danger.
That is somebody's opinion is all this is. I don't think it's a rational reason to shy away from giving men and women information that will likely result in fewer rapes.
Look, in some cultures (particularly the heavy wine drinkers) it's shameful to get shit faced plastered (for men and women). It's a quick way to lose respect among your peers. And it certainly doesn't inspire "romance". You go to a dinner party and get shit faced, you ain't getting invited back.
Sounds reasonable to me. People in the US act like getting plastered is like breathing air or something. Really think about what the motivations are for continuing to fight for this cultural attitude and ask if it's worth it.
Oh, I agree that getting wasted is a pretty crappy way to have fun, at least on a regular basis. I drink 1-2 beers in a night about once a month as my personal alcohol consumption. I'm not really defending the practice of binge drinking. I'm not FOR alcohol abuse.
There certainly are many possible consequences that could happen to a person if they are drunk, and being sexually assaulted is one very possible one. If we want to talk about the dangers of drinking, thats one thing, but I get upset when people single out sexual assault. It may be an opinion, but people don't regularly warn men not to get drunk because they could be assaulted. Either do it for everyone or not at all.
I think I'm having trouble articulating this well because it's very personal to me. When I was assaulted, I had gotten fairly drunk at a small party and fell asleep. I woke up hours later because someone was removing my clothing and then proceeded to do various other things while I was incoherent and pretended to be asleep because I feared for my (physical) safety. When I'd tell people about it--online, especially--they'd say I was asking for it because I dared to get drunk at a party. I drank, therefore it was my fault. Because apparently, women do not have the same freedoms men do. Nevermind that I can count the number of times I've actually been drunk on 2 hands, nevermind that when I started drinking that night the only people who were there were people I trusted, nevermind that I've never so much as been introduced to the man that did it to me--whatever. I dared to be drinking. How could I have been so stupid. Even if those above things weren't true, who cares? I didn't bring it on myself. Perhaps someone will distinguish my situation from others where alcohol was involved because I wasn't conscious when my assault began. I don't know. I don't see much difference and I'm sure other victims don't either. I'm tired of my behavior being held to a different standard then men's because they could commit a crime and take advantage of me. Ugh.
I'm sorry that happened to you. The person who assaulted you is a piece of shit. This type of stuff is just too common: something similar happened to a friend and I supported her 100%, no blaming, just listening.
I don't like having to single out sexual assault and booze either but 1) it is a problem that needs a solution 2) maybe we can find a way to tweak the message to still get the point across without folks inferring that we are have 2 standards for men and women.
I've been plastered a couple of times myself. I never had anything happen (thankfully). But my group of friends from high school (way back in the day) left an impression on my view. I have 1 friend who back in our colleges days discovered that she couldn't hold her liquor worth shit: one minute she was cool, the next minute she was staggering, slurring words, disappearing from our sight, etc. Then she would make it a habit of wandering over to strange guys to start flirting and getting touchy feely--she would never do this sober.
Now most of the time our little bar hopping and partying was all in good fun. But our group always had a designated driver (that shit comes in handy for all kinds of reasons, btw), so one of us was always sober. And we learned to especially watch the 1 friend's back. In my eyes we were standing up for ourselves, by subtly letting men know that, we can all have fun and have a good time, but if you overstep with any of us, it's not happening. And if something did happen, we would always have a sober witness among us.
See, if we want to have a safe drinking environment we have to demand it. Nothing good comes easy, but maybe for the next round of kids who grow up, attitudes will shift (wishful thinking, huh?).
I do support the legislation in place that says that intoxicated people cannot consent, for example. I just don't don't think it's enough.
Anyway, thanks for respectfully entertaining my posts. I know this is a hard topic to discuss.
but sweetie---I'm sorry that happened to you. I really am....
However, it is stupid to get shitfaced at a party, pass out and then wonder what happened. Shoulda/coulda/in a perfect world---is no substitute for the real world.
You got bit by your own carelessness. You got bit in a particularly harmful and degrading way....I married an abusive man. Should he have been abusive? No. Should I have married him? No. Did I get raped by him? Yes. As much my fault as his, for staying there----his lack of humanity does not cancel out my own stupidity in not only marrying him, but returning.
Life bites us for our choices. Sometimes even good choices end up badly. That's life. Grow up, put your big girl panties on and deal with life as it is.
Wow. And to think I thought people wouldn't be horrible on a feminist website. You should be ashamed of yourself. You don't deserve to open your mouth. Thanks for scaring me away from viewing this website anymore. You really shouldn't be allowed talk to people.
First of all, falling asleep does not equal passing out. I wasn't kissing some guy and then fell asleep next to him and "wonder what happened the next morning," in your words. I was drunk, but coherent, got tired, decided to find a place to go to sleep rather than drive home. This fucker found me, made sure I was fast asleep, and then did what he wanted. This would have happened to me whether or not I had been drinking because I had fallen asleep and this prick decided that he could take advantage of me. Yes, I was probably an easier target to him because he had seen me drinking earlier. Whatever.
And don't equate your continuous, idiotic decision to go back to your lousy husband to a stranger assaulting me in my sleep while at a friend's house. You are a fucking idiot and don't deserve any help that people might try to give you.
Don't be scared away from this website, most people would never post something like that. There would be a lot more outrage if this post wasn't already old enough to get bumped off the front page.
I just caught up with this post- I'm with MissKitty. Don't get scared away. What that guy did to you was terrible and it was HIS fault, not yours, and 99.9% of the posters here would offer support and empathy.
What mamalisa seems to be missing is that people make a lot of decisions that lead up to a sexual assault. A victim's decision-making stops, however, when the other person decides to commit sexual assault.
Even if a person IS shitfaced and passed out at a party (you've made it clear this wasn't the case when he raped you, but I'm making a point), that person decided to get drunk, s/he didn't decide that someone could or should rape her/him. The rapist decided that.
And that's the only decision we should care about.
You do not need to be blaming other women just because you made a "choice" that many of us made. You are blaming yourself for your partner's actions, therefore you are blaming others for the actions of the men around them. First of all, you do not get to blame yourself and just get let off the hook. It was not your fault that your partner abused you. It was not your fault that the society in which we live usually makes it easier and more acceptable to go back to our abusers because of emotions/"love"/money/livelihoods/social acceptance. And it's certainly not other women's faults that men around them choose to rape them whether or not they are in a particularly vulnerable position. In an egalitarian society, women would not be responsible for making sure they were "not raped." Men would be responsible for not abusing or raping women no matter what their physical, mental, or emotional states are. It is my fault if I get drunk and trip over something and break my leg. It is my fault if I get drunk and make a choice to drive a car. It is NOT my fault if I get drunk and a man subsequently decides that he wants to have sex with/rape me. That is HIS fault, his choice. Not mine for getting drunk. There are always consequences for our own actions. However, we are not responsible for the way people respond to OUR choices or the choices they make based on our mental/physical/emotional state. They do not get to decide what to do to our bodies based on their assessment of our ability to say no.
as someone who's been the victim of a date rape, I found this article quite insulting. But I guess the definitive part in my case is that the other party was not the least bit intoxicated and I was too far gone to be able to even give consent. I've been told (by an individual who shall remain nameless) that because I had consented to sexual activity with him while sober in the past I should expect to be "taken advantage of" while passed out drunk even though I had outright told him that same evening prior to the incident that I no longer wanted to continue a sexual relationship with him.
There is only ONE natural right:
To do as you will...
There is only ONE natural law:
To take the consequences.
****I was too far gone to be able to even give consent***
Since I can't make this thing do italics.
Why ever were you that far gone, and exactly *what* did you expect to happen? The good fairy to come and take you home? Darlin', you act like a fool, foolish things happen.....maybe they shouldn't, but they do. And when they do, they usually bite like a stone bitch.
Uncalled for mamalisa, uncalled for.
A reminder to everyone commenting on this thread--victim blaming is not tolerated at Feministing.
Mamalisa, you do realize that crimes happen in broad daylight, that robbers screw with you even when you have NO MONEY, that men are as responsible for their actions as women?
We have a long, long way to go as humans and I am going to be so dead by the time it's worth being alive. Sometimes I really, really, really hate people.
(Except I do love feministing.)
While I'm open to differing opinions, I feel that mamalisa is being a jerk. And therefore, I think mamalisa should "take the consequences" and be banned/comments deleted.
I have to comment and say that may victims of rape or sexual assault try to make the assault ok immediately in the aftermath by calling their rapist, eating breakfast, hanging out with them again, even having supposedly consensual sex with them in order to "make the rape go away." Just because a woman has consensual sex before or after a man raped her or eats breakfast with the man, writes a note thanking him for the "wonderful night" etc... does not mean he did not rape her or did not victimize her. Sometimes it means that she is trying to cope with her victimization by making it ok, by trying to convince herself it was consensual in order to try not to experience the trauma that often comes with being raped. It is unfair for us to talk about "regret the morning after" or "positive notes" showing that the woman did, initially, consent and then "regret" her actions, thus "crying rape." A man I was dating sexually assaulted me and I continued to date him for weeks afterward in order to try to convince myself that he was a "good person" that he couldn't possibly have done anything to me. After trying to convince myself that he did not assault me, I finally realized how traumatized, scared, and angry I was at his predatory, inhumane treatment of me ande my body. I stopped seeing him but out of embarrassment of my own actions (as much as I tell other women not to blame themselves) I never pressed charges and it took me over a year to tell anyone about it.
The best solution to avoid date rape: tell me to stop raping women, to get positive consent and to stay away from "having sex" with any intoxicated woman. I don't think that's too much to ask of men. In fact, I think it's the least they could do.
Quick correction: "The best solution to avoid date tape: tell MEN (not me) to stop raping women...."