I didn't think it was possible, but I was wrong. The other night the local news did a story about this man, Tyray Miller, who meets women in clubs, gets them drunk and takes them back to his apartment where he takes pictures and video of himself having sex with them and posts the photos on his website. As much as he would like to convince others (and probably even himself) that what he did was consenual, it was rape! Women in the news segment testify that he encouraged them to drink large amounts of alcohol before being filmed, and one woman admits that the night is very hazy. Miller says that these women (all but 5, but they don't matter right <sarcasm>) consented to having themselves photographed and video taped. The statement that he made is also just absolutely wonderful.
What really got me was that this segment never mentions that Miller's actions are considered rape. Instead, it goes on to victim-blame and say how these women learned a "hard lesson" and that people should "beware of cameras, especially when you've been drinking".
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Yes, there is someone worse that Tucker Max.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17329
Unless the alcohol consumption was forced and unless the women were unknowingly given drugs, what he did was tasteless and loathsome, but it was not rape. I cannot get on board with "he encouraged them to drink large amounts of alcohol" being an indication of lacking consent. These are adult women we are talking about here, not children. If he were getting teens drunk on his dime and encouraging them to drink as much as possible then I would say he is culpable. But adult women have the choice to drink or not and it doesn't say much for the maturity of a woman who drinks when she doesn't want to because she wants some guy to like her. He didn't take away their option to refuse alcohol or even the sex for that matter since they weren't unconscious, but intoxicated. If we are going to argue that the women were not responsible for choosing sex because they were drunk then we have to accept that men who commit rape while drunk aren't responsible for that choice either, and I certainly would not accept that.
IMO, decent people do not purposely take advantage of other people, and do not encourage them to do things that they will likely regret or feel humiliated about later. But there is no law that says you have to be decent, only that there are certain acts you must not commit against others. He can still be a jerkwad without being a rapist.
The reason a drunk man is culpable for rape is that rape is ILLEGAL.
Consenting to sex is LEGAL. Therefore whether you do it drunk or not is legally irrelevant. It is just as OK as drunkenly sending funny emails to people or drunkenly watching movies.
Drunkenly killing, raping, torturing, robbing, burgling, destroying property etc, is still illegal, just as it would be if you did it while high. The only "out" you might get is if you could prove you were spiked.
I totally get that and agree with you, but I took issue with waht this guy did being called 'rape', which is of course a major crime, while arguing that the drunk women he had sex with couldn't be responsible for choosing to have sex on tape. My point isn't so much about what is illegal, but whether or not people can be held responsible for (bad)choices they make when drunk. Something doesn't have to be illegal to be a major, major mistake that screws up your life.
What a pathetic excuse for a human being. In my town, unfortunately, this is the kind of guy who wins the hearts of the girls. A lot of us "nerds" are cool, we're just too shy and scared to talk to you. I hope the next girl he talks to gives him a knee to the freakin nuts.
I have worked at rape crisis centers in several different states. In every state I am aware of, a person can not give consent for sexual contact (or anything else for that matter) if they are legally intoxicated. This means that if these women were under the influence of alcohol, than any sexual contact he had with them was sexual assault. Further more, if he was encouraging them to do drink large amounts of alcohol with the purpose of getting them drunk enough to have sex with him, he was drugging them. Alcohol is the most commonly used date rape drug.
Even if everything you say is correct, it is unfair to blame the women.
It is always unfair to blame the woman. Period.
In the military, you CANNOT give informed consent if there is alcohol involved. Bad decisions aside, plying women with alcohol to get them to do things they may have not done sober is constituted at a minimum as sexual assault and is prosecutable as such. In my mind, if you do not and cannot get an informed consent from a person that is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it is nothing less than sexual assault or rape. And as much as I hate the military for personal reasons, they got it right in this aspect.
I just don't understand how a contract signed under the influence is null and void in most places, but it's perfectly legit for a woman under the influence to consent to be filmed or photographed (think GGW, also).
On top of that, if guys like this (and Tucker) live in states where coercion and intoxication nullifies legal consent brag about it in the media, why aren't they being arrested?
I hope those women get together and file at the very least, a civil suit.
Should men who have sex with women when they (the men) are drunk be able to say they didn't give consent? If so, does that mean that women who have sex with drunk men are also rapists? I'll never agree that a man can be held accountable for choices he makes while drunk but a woman cannot. That's getting too close to equating us with children whose delicate little minds can't handle it and the big, strong man has to think for both of us.
Um, if a sober woman has sex with a drunk man, then yes, that is sexual assault, at least in my book. Does that help?
It's not sexual assault it's rape. Why did you suddenly switch words?
Well, rape is sexual assault. To be semantically correct, though, sure, she's a rapist. I'm not the person Crumpet was originally responding to, so I don't see where I "switched words."
yes, she is guilty of rape. Pointing out that in this case(and in general) men do most raping doesn't mean that women who do the same things aren't guilty of rape. There are just differences in who's allowed to get away with it.
You can't void contracts for merely being "under the influence". You'd need to be drunk enough to not be capable of understanding what's going on. In court, people involuntarily intoxicated typically get some sympathy, but voluntarily intoxicated people are held to a very high standard. (e.g. not "too drunk to drive legally", but "too drunk to drive because you can't figure out how to start a car.")
And we don't consider being nearly blacked out, hardly able to remember the night, severely intoxicated?
Intoxication can void a contract if an intoxicated person could not understand the terms of a deal and the other party was aware or should have been aware of that fact.
He knows exactly what he's doing when he's feeding these women shots. And there was no mention in the clip that the (5) women were informed before the drinking began that his intention was to film/photograph explicit scenes. I can see your point for the women who were paid for the services, but it sounds to me that the 5 with complaints were a) not paid and b) not informed of the guy's intentions for the evening.
Especially in the case of the doctor, because of the potential for her professionalism to take a serious hit, I have doubts that she would have consented to making what amounts to amatuer porn. I'm sorry, but this to me just reeks of the victim blaming tactic of "she just said it was rape because she was embarassed about her bad decision in the morning". Which is total BS.
Also, we have different standards of culpability for the drunk pedestrian who gets hit by a car, and the drunk driver who hits a pedestrian.
Sorry, but 'feeding them shots' sounds so paternalistic. Are we talking about grown assed women here or children? The way you put it conjures up images of some nursing home invalid having liquids poured down their throat whether they want it or not. I agree that once the women became drunk their judgment was impaired and their inhibitions were lowered.It's what alcohol does and everyone knows it, no secret there. That's true with anyone who becomes drunk, male or female, professional or non. In fact, it has happened to most everone at some point in their lives. Merely stating that people tend to do things while drunk that they wouldn't do while sober and that it is not uncommon for people to regret things they said or did while under the influence is not victim blaming. Victim blaming at least assumes that there IS a crime and a victim and that the victim deserved what happened to them because of something they did that people don't approve of. Let's say that instead of having sex on film while drunk these women drove home while drunk and caused an accident....like hitting someone head on in the wrong lane. Would you argue that they aren't responsible because 'some guy' provided them with alcohol, so they aren't responsible for driving drunk and hurting someone? 7 Eleven provides people with alcohol and so does almost every restaurant. Do you get to claim that they 'fed' you alcohol and that it's their fault you drove drunk? True, some places are held accountable for cutting off obviously intoxicated patrons, but the drunk person would still be charged with a DUI/manslaughter for driving under the influence. A private citizen who is drinking with a woman in a bar is not legally responsible for making sure she doesn't drink so much she ends up hurt/sick/crazy at the end of the night.
to add: It still just seems like you are assigning criminal status to something you find morally reprehensible (and I also agree that this guy has no moral compass).
Now you're just being picky. Back in my days as a shooter girl, you better believe I "fed" people shots; took advantage of their levels of intoxication. Men and women alike. I'm not proud of it, but let's not pretend like it doesn't happen. Let's not conflate drunk driving with being taken advantage of, please. It's not the same thing.
You still weren't forcing those shots on anyone and what you did was not a criminal act even if you do feel badly about it now.
Actually, it is something I could have been held criminally responsible for. It's called over-serving. Private citizens can also be held responsible, though it's a rarity. I'm not just "being paternalistic".
But he wasn't responsible for serving their drinks. He wasn't the bartender. And seriously, either way, blaming someone for 'getting you drunk' when you voluntarily consumed every single beverage that got you that way is a cop out for childish people who have no business drinking in the first place.
Jesus, what comments are you reading? I blame him for encouraging their drinking in order to do something illegal. It's all about intent, and his was not good.
I don't blame people for helping me get drunk. I blame them for using that situation as an opportunity to assault me/get me to consent on a "binding" agreement/suggest lending out my car to them is a good idea... WHATEVER! You're right, people need to be responsible for their behavior. Even the "mean, insensitive jerks", because irresponsible behavior can be illegal.
Man, you are so good at re-focusing the point of the argument to something irrelevant, I almost didn't follow it.
Let's shorten this up, shall we?
Cr --> Sorry, but 'feeding them shots' sounds so paternalistic
Ch --> People do it all the time, it's not me trying to sound paternalistic. Here's a perfect example...
Cr --> Yeah, but that wasn't something criminal (that wasn't the point)
Ch --> Yes it was
Cr --> Yeah, but that guy wasn't a bartender (once again, not the point)
None of that freaking matters! The only thing that matters is the guy intentionally encouraged their drinking in order to get what he wanted from the women. Call it greasy, call it skeezy, call it whatever you like, but don't pretend what the guy did wasn't illegal.
The only thing that would be illegal would be the crime that was committed against the women after they were drunk, if indeed one was committed. All of the details have not been established, so I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion that just because this guy is a douche that he is also guilty of rape. The act of 'getting them drunk' is not illegal at all even if it is sleazy.
yes, that was illegal. and filming them if they were too intoxicated to consent is illegal. that's the crime here. despite what you keep complaining about trying to say that getting them drunk isn't a crime. You're right, it isn't. raping them when they're drunk is.
Please show me where I said getting someone drunk is illegal. Without using the example I provided of my previous job. Because that was not an example of criminal behavior; rather, encouragment/coercion/etc and how common and easy it is.
It's a video clip, and being unable to view it, I can't speak to the contents of the clip. Whether or not any specific women were incapacitated? I have no idea. But since the point was raised about intoxication and legal consent, it's worth expounding upon. The question was asked explicitly, "Why aren't they being arrested?", which is worth asking, and worth answering.
Intoxication to a level where one party is unable to understand an agreement voids the agreement, regardless of whether the other party is aware of it or not.
Also, we have different standards of culpability for the drunk pedestrian who gets hit by a car, and the drunk driver who hits a pedestrian. Of course, drunk drivers aren't anywhere near the level of drunkeness needed to be legally incapacitated. They're still perfectly competent to understand. A drunk driver drunk enough to be incompetent might be able to escape criminal prosecution for drunk driving, but it doesn't come up because at that level of intoxication, they can't operate a car correctly anyhow.Did he get consent to distribute the photos and videos online? 'Cause it's one thing to go "Yeah sure, you can video tape us having sex for your own collection" and another to go "Yeah sure, you can video tape us having sex so that you can show it to the entire world." It's like the sexting scandals when boys take the nude pictures their girlfriends send them and post them around school when they get dumped. Yeah, there was consent for him to have the photo, but not for him to show it to the entire school. There is a BIG difference between those two. And I don't feel like getting angry this early in the morning so I'm not gonna watch the clip, but if these women didn't consent to having the video and pictures posted online then I think this is a big deal and I'm tired of men being able to pass around a nude picture/video given to them (whether it's sexting, a sex tape of a former pageant contestant, etc.) and nothing happening to them but instead people turn to the women and go "Well you should have known better than to trust a man with nuddie photos." Even if he's been an intimate partner for YEARS or just a one night stand, you still should have known better, right?
Don't show your naughty bits, ladies! Because the second they leave your clothing they become fair game for anyone, no matter whether you want that person to see them or not. -_-
I don't know that you need to give consent for particular usage, and even when you are an actor doing commercials you concede that the person who is paying you for your work owns the finished product and can use it as much as they like, forever. You don't get to control when it's shown or where, or even if it ends up not being shown at all. And is it totally out of the realm of comprehension to expect people to exercise even a miniscule amount of common sense? When you give someone images of you it does become their property and you relinquish control over where it ends up. How foolish is it to expect that some douche you met at a bar is going to be respectful about the naked videos he has of you 5 minutes after you just met? Even though it is slimy of someone to willfully humiliate someone else and violate their trust, that doesn't make it a crime. If he commits a crime against someone he is responsible legally. He may be morally responsible for acting in a way that respects the privacy of others, but we don't lock people up or make them pay up just for not being the nice people we'd hoped they would be. It seems that a lot of folks emotionalize these situations and want people to be given legal consequences for being mean, insensitive jerks. But people are allowed to be jerks just as I am allowed to not go home with jerks and screw them on camera.
I hear that consumption of alcohol and drugs can sometimes interfere with one's "common sense."
Wow, where did you hear that? They should really start putting warning labels on beer bottles and shot glasses, because people really need to know about this. Most everyone I know drinks with the expectation that they won't be affected at all. They're going to be bummed out to learn that alcohol actually affects their perceptions of things.
I dunno, I can see where you're coming from, but even in the case of photography and film, people have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The display of the photo can't be maliciously untrue, or humiliate, ridicule, or reveal embarrassing and personal facts about a non-newsworthy person.
So if these women consented to the photography during these "romps", there is still law in place to keep them from being published without explicit consent from the women involved. Further, if they gave this verbal or written consent while heavily intoxicated, there is also law in place that says lack of capacity to contract (including being intoxicated) makes that agreement void.
So basically, I'm trying to say - while no doubt exceptionally difficult to prosecute - this guy isn't just being a "mean, insensitive jerk". He's breaking the law.
If he's breaking the law by distributing these photos/videos, then he should be charged with THAT, not rape.
Where did I say the guy should be charged with rape?
Do I think he should be? If the women say he raped them, then yes, I think that's an avenue that should be explored.
Going off the clip, however, they didn't say it was rape. The beef is with the photography and its subsequent distribution.
Encouraging the women to drink? Agreed, moral issue. Skeezy and gross, but not illegal.
His actions once they were drunk? Crossing a legal boundary. It's his responsibility to cover his own ass as far as verbal agreements/contracts, and if he encouraged intoxication, and waited until a level of intoxication was achieved before making these agreements, that's a legal issue. One for which he can be, at the very least, sued for. That is why photographers have consent to release forms for their models. It's due dilligence to Cover Your Ass, and I don't feel sorry for someone who doesn't.
The original poster said:
As much as he would like to convince others (and probably even himself) that what he did was consenual, it was rape!
You weren't saying it is rape but that was the point made in the original post.
But it's all analagous, isn't it?
"Instead, it goes on to victim-blame and say how these women learned a 'hard lesson' and that people should 'beware of (being remotely sexual), especially when you've been drinking'."
You would have heard the same drivel if it was a violation of reasonable expectations of privacy, or if it was date rape. I bet word-for-word, even. Why? Because this all boils down to consent. Consentconsentconsent
I was told my date rape was a hard lesson to learn about drinking responsibly. How is that a lesson? How does rape become a fucking life lesson?
And then people like you jump into the fray and start going off about how as adults, women need to make more responsible decisions about drinking and think that it's not victim blaiming. That people should have more self-confidence or maturity when they're out drinking. Well, guess what? People have flaws. And the guy who tries to capitalize on low self-esteem or self-worth is not a "meanie", he's a fucking predator.
If you were raped while you were drunk then the fact that you were drinking does not negate the crime against you. You still have the right to say 'no', no one here is saying that just because a woman does something reckless (just as an example) that it is permissible for someone to rape her. THAT is victim blaming. I just do not agree that any sex that a woman engages in because her judgment is impaired after drinking is automatically rape anymore than a man is a victim of rape because he has sex while intoxicated. Lots of people have sex when they are drunk and lots of people afterwards wish they had not. That goes for men and women. Instead of accusing me of victim blaming just because I don't agree that drunk women can't consent to sex, look at why it seems so many people are so quick to throw the word rape around when discussing any sexual activity between men and women. It's almost like the radical sect of feminists who think that all male/female sex is an act of rape in some way or another. Why is it so hard to grasp that a woman can be drunk and consent to sex just as much as she can be drunk and refuse to engage in sex (and if it is forced on her, that's rape). The fact that she feels embarrassed afterwards is not what determines whether or not a crime took place. For fuckssake, we had a woman posting on here that she actually called a guy to come back to her to have sex with her after he was initially WALKING AWAY because she rejected his advances at first and some people were still calling THAT rape just because she FELT bad about it afterwards and wished she hadn't.
No wonder so many people think we're nuts.
Thanks for missing my point.
You do need consent for particular usage. I work in film and theater. You need a general release form (or a specific one that includes certain media, but you have to go back to the performer with a further offer for any use outside of this). For example a comedian friend of mine just did a promotion for a corporate client who used his likeness the day after the month-long contract ended. This put them in breach and he was immediately offered a high additional payment to placate him, or he could sue. The reason Gisele isn't in the Disney Princess package is that they'd have to pay Amy Adams royalties for her likeness; they can't just use it. This is particularly true if you are going to make money off the material, or if you are going to use it for promotional purposes - say, as pitch materials to a porn maker you want to hire you to direct a movie. However even if there's no profit you are still in trouble.
Unless they agreed that it was "work for hire" then at the very least he is in breach of copyright. If there was consent to sex (so, not rape) and to filming (so, not whatever crime that is, breach of privacy perhaps?), but no "work for hire" contract, then that means the women own half of the rights to the video, because they were 50% of the people involved in making it. So there's the underlying rights to the 'script' (or in the case of what you might call improv, the performance), then there's this specific recording. The women own half of each of these things.
This means firstly that the women have the legal right to veto any distribution channels of any sort, and secondly that he is in breach simply by putting the videos out there even if for non-commercial use. The minute the videos step foot outside his living room, he is liable. He would need to show a document from them agreeing to waive ownership. Obviously if there were 2 women in one video they would, between them, own a majority share and he would be in even more trouble.
Of course they would have to prove damages but I think emotional distress and damage to reputation in this instance would come with a pretty high figure attached. It may be obvious you shouldn't trust a douchebag in a bar but it is ALSO obvious that you shouldn't breach people's copyright without consent, particularly since the former usually happens drunk and the latter sober.
If I could like your comment more I would. :D Thanks for a more professional/experienced view on it. I know the gist of stuff like that but no specifics, so it was nice to hear it put so neatly.
You're welcome!
Also to be clear re last paragraph, they can definitely demand half of any money he makes, he can't withhold it without paperwork showing they resigned their rights to the film (plus possible compensation for breaching it). Damages is a separate, additional matter.
Another point worth making is that a contract requires an exchange of value. So even if they did somehow freely agree on film or on paper to something about "work for hire" or a copyright waiver, that still wouldn't constitute a contract unless he gave them something in return. The onus would be on him to prove they took his money or he gave them his PS3 or something.
Finally, and this is actually really funny - if they could show that he stole their ideas to make subsequent sex tapes (eg the lighting, filming, positions, 'script' were similar enough, or if he were to say something really stupid like, "I tried this with another woman once, it was great, I want to do it with you") they might have an additional claim for plagiarism. If this stood up in court they would theoretically be able to wrest control of his cut of future tapes from him, then split any proceeds with the featured women. So he could end up effectively not owning the rights to his own sex life.
you're right that movies can be shown at the discretion of the studio w/o actors permission-but for actors this control is given away in a contract. they expressly sign documents saying "you can show this to whomever you want, whenever you want and you own the rights". Images taken of you don't automatically become the property of the taker-why do you think so many organizations have you sign photo release wavers? legally if he doesn't have a signed relase, they are totally within their rights to demand, and force him if he doesn't, that those videos be removed. do I think most courts have enough respect for women to do that? no.
Photographers and videographers own the footage, and can post, publish, and use it however they like, IF they have a signed and dated release specifying that. If there is nudity and sexual acts, they also have to have a photocopy or photograph of a valid government ID showing the person in the naked, sexy photo or video was over the age of 18 at the time of filming.
In February 2009 the federal laws regarding the record keeping for these sorts of film and videos was held up in court. You can google "Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act" and specifically Section 2257 for more information about this.
If he is putting sexually explicit videos and photos online without maintaining these records he is violating the law. Whether anyone cares to enforce this or not is a different matter.
I don't know that you need to give consent for particular usage, and even when you are an actor doing commercials you concede that the person who is paying you for your work owns the finished product and can use it as much as they like, forever. You don't get to control when it's shown or where, or even if it ends up not being shown at all. And is it totally out of the realm of comprehension to expect people to exercise even a miniscule amount of common sense? When you give someone images of you it does become their property and you relinquish control over where it ends up. How foolish is it to expect that some douche you met at a bar is going to be respectful about the naked videos he has of you 5 minutes after you just met? Even though it is slimy of someone to willfully humiliate someone else and violate their trust, that doesn't make it a crime. If he commits a crime against someone he is responsible legally. He may be morally responsible for acting in a way that respects the privacy of others, but we don't lock people up or make them pay up just for not being the nice people we'd hoped they would be. It seems that a lot of folks emotionalize these situations and want people to be given legal consequences for being mean, insensitive jerks. But people are allowed to be jerks just as I am allowed to not go home with jerks and screw them on camera.
"Consent" porn is what this is; because "fake" humiliatainment is sooooo last year.
I wonder what's next once this becomes tiresome.
Unfortunately there are lots of guys and sites on the internet with this exact sort of thing. Anyone who has done alot of porn surfing (which I have) has encountered sites like this of guys posting videos and pics from their drunken sexual exploits.
I understand that sometimes people get drunk and have sex. Sometimes they regret it, sometimes they don't. Some people get off on posting images themselves on the internet, and that's cool, as long as it's consensual.
This sounds as though this man walks into bars with a *plan* to get women drunk, blow their consent and post the content on the internet.
I can't wrap my head around how this is just a cautionary tale, or just some guy being a jerk.
It would be one thing if the women agreed to pose/be filmed before they were intoxicated.
It frustrates the hell out of me that if a woman goes out and *dares* to have a good time/get drunk/take a risk, she somehow *earns* her punishment of having this kind of shit winding up online with no recourse.
I wish it were one or two lone jerks. But this guy claims that he is making money of his content; he allegedly has some quotes on his website gloating about fact that the women have indeed felt taken advantage of. I can't help but think that this is part of the allure here.
I think this is worthy of a discussion about cultural masculine identity because apparently the scenarios presented here have been quite popular in male-oriented fictional porn, i.e, "pretending" to aggressively/disrespectfully "seduce" unsuspecting women, plying women with alcohol and other intoxicants, scenes where women appear to be coaxed into doing things they would not ordinarily do, etc.
The consent stuff has been bothering me in real life too. A guy I know (who considers himself "sex positive") recently went to a sex worker and then contemplated taking in a secret webcam for his next visit, even after she explicitly told him that she did not want her image captured. His reason? Bragging rights.
I don't think anyone deserves to be tricked and humiliated just because they trust someone who turns out to be a dirtbag. Personally I'm so glad I'm not single and out in the dating world with all of this invasive technology that can enable jerks to film private moments, especially without my knowledge. I would probably be too paranoid to have sex with anyone outside my own bedroom for fear that someone had a hidden camera somewhere and my ass would end up on some porn site. And yes, I would sue if someone did that without my knowledge and consent and I would encourage these women to do the same thing. I am more concerned with how women are judged so much more harshly for doing the same things men do and how that affects our standing in society. If an ex puts up a video he took of us having sex I'm sure that I would be the one everyone is calling names even though he was in the video,too and he was the one who posted it for the world to see. Somehow his reputation could remain intact while I am judged in all kinds of negative ways. I really think that is what sucks the most about the whole thing, really: that men like this can feel free to post videos of themselves fucking lots of different women without ever having to worry that they will suffer repercussions but knowing that their female counterparts will be crucified. There is a reason that it is usually men who post these kinds of things and I think the double standard has an awful lot to do with it.
I can't tell you how many times in my life I've gotten what they call "pissy drunk" but I can tell you how many times I've done that on my own, with no one watching my back to be sure I at least got my pissy drunk a$$ home..ZERO.
The majority of women in this country are not posted up on youtube somewhere pissy drunk having sex with someone who has no respect for her as a human being. It isn't luck, its called personal responsibility.
I'm not sure I'm reading your comment correctly, so tell me if I've misinterpreted/responded off the mark.
Are you suggesting that women who have drunk sex, or get drunk at all without following arbitrary safety precautions x, y, and z somehow deserve to be up on youtube or otherwise violated?
To be honest I'm not really into the whole binge drinking culture, period. And I'm with you on being smart and taking personal responsibility.
But all genders make bad or risky decisions sometimes, especially when it comes to alcohol. It doesn't mean that women should suddenly lose their rights to their bodies and that they deserve to be humiliated.
A woman doesn't have to be having drunk sex to have disturbing or unwelcome content of herself wind up on the internet. Women's bodies are treated as communal property. It doesn't matter how sober you are, what you're doing, who you hang out with, what neighborhood you're in -- there will always be some creep who feels entitled to take a photo of your breasts for his blog.
yeah you read me wrong. i am responding to your assertion that if a woman dares get drunk, she runs the risk of screwing a loser or being raped. Thats not true for most women. There a things you can do to safeguard yourself, concern for others never stopped jerks from being jerks no more than laws stopped any incaerated criminal from commiting the crime they were arrested for.
Ah, the old "Just World Hypothesis."
Crumpet: I totally agree with you. I think feminism is all about equality- if we continue to treat women condescendingly and assuming they are not responsible for their choices, then where is the equality?
There's a difference between saying "Be responsible" and saying "Be responsible, because skeezy people will always do skeezy things, and frankly, I'm not going to feel sorry for you if this happens to be an outcome, because getting hammered is a bad decision."
One is being smart. Of course we're responsible for our own behavior.
One is telling people that the things done to them are a result of their bad decisions. Maybe it is in some cases (ie: the women who were paid - if they even consider it a bad decision), but when the women were freaking preyed upon, and then said post-violation that they did not consent, it's rape-culture fueled victim blaming not to take what they said at face value.
They are NOT responsible for Miller's actions, which were entirely illegal. Drunk or not drunk (though drunk only adds to how illegal it was). See zes above for a thourough explaination of the line he crossed.
This topic of drunkeness and manipulative sex and when it becomes rape came up in nerve this week. The feminists are losing badly, too:
http://www.nerve.com/regulars/my-first-time/021-female-18-vienna/
(Read the comments section, the original story being referred to is here:
http://www.nerve.com/regulars/my-first-time/010-female-16-connecticut/
)
They may be grown women, but that does not mean they deserve to be blamed for having a predatory jerk take advantage of them. If we keep this attitude of "adults can make responsible choices for themselves and if they don't they deserve what's coming" then we are pretty much condoning a lot of unfortunate events that happen. There is a lot more than alcohol involved when drunk women make decisions, usually a culture that has been telling them not to be rude and to be pleasing men their whole life is a factor as well. I'm sorry, but we need to protect all people from having people take advantage of them, regardless of age. A free-for-all does no good unless you want to the weaker less "responsible" people to be picked off from the crowd to let the more intelligent people that possess common sense and responsibility go through life without having anything bad happen to them.
I'd never expected the feministing community to victim-blame as much as it is.
Agreed, the victim-blaming in this thread is just depressing :(
As well as the usual "feminists allways see/treet women as victims!" rethorics.
This was a reply to Lilith Luffles posts above.
I know this has already been mentioned, but I want to make it clear that, at least in the state of California where I live and advocate for sexual assault victims/survivors, it is impossible to consent to sex if you are intoxicated. Period. Man, woman, straight, gay, and everyone in between.
Now, it is very, very rare that these cases actually get prosecuted, because of the very sentiments being expressed in this thread. But I'm not trying to get into those opinions- I'm trying to make it clear that regardless of anyone's personal feelings on alcohol and consent, it is rape if you have sex while intoxicated because you cannot legally consent if you are "impaired" by alcohol. You don't have to like it, or agree with it. But everyone should be aware of the laws in their state, and recognize the risk they're taking any time they have sex drunk.