::shrugs:: If you get falling-down-drunk, such that folks can effortlessly help themselves to your tangible property or your unprotected body, you deserve to remain free from such unjustified misconduct either way; (a) do you disagree? And (b) would you, nevertheless, advise folks against doing so, in both cases and for significantly similar reasons?
I don’t agree that they are significantly similar, and I think your notion of effortlessness is not the same as mine. I think the idea that one’s genitals have been well-nigh abandoned to the public because he or she is drunk is a problematic one.
Wow, I should rephrase.
Let me now use completely different words: you don’t deserve to have the general public access your genitals when you’re too drunk to resist. People are not justified in doing as they please with your genitals without your consent, even while you’re drunk. I happen to hold the exact same views about, as you say, tangible property.
I sure am sorry if the terms I was using before were confusing, and hope this all-new all-different wording clears that up for you.
The conclusion you’ve reached is exactly why the article deserves all the flak it’s taken and then some.
If we want to talk about rookie mistakes, let’s talk about conflating correlation with causation. Yes, lots are rapes are associated with alcohol consumption. But these same rapes are often associated with being out at late hours, loud music, and crowds. The common chord here is socializing. When adults socialize, usually that means drinking will be had, and interactions will often take on sexual overtones. Sexualized interactions are conducive for rape. The guy looking to score regardless of if he can find a willing partner is drawn to these environments like a moth to a flame.
Is he looking for an easy target? Yes. Is a drunk woman an easier target than a sober one? Yes.
But what is the cure here? To create a society where women decline to drink anything stronger than a coke out of fear of rape? How is that really any different than a society that forbidswomen to drink anything stronger than a coke? How it different from a society that is permissive and nonjudgemental towards men who want to party, have fun, and unwind with some spirits, but treats similar-minded women as objects to be scorned and tut-tuted? “Women, don’t get drunk if you want to stay unraped” is not all that different than advising people not to drive if they want to avoid accidents with drunk drivers.
It is assumed that a drunk woman is at risk of “predicted consequences” when she gets drunk in a social context, and yet oddly enough, she is still expected to merrily socialize with the very same men that would be responsible for the “predicted consequences”. If I thought that I was going to a venue attended by would-be rapists, it is unlikely I would go. So why are we telling women it’s okay to party with predators as long as they are “smart” about it, rather than telling them to eschew predators altogether? “Woman, don’t party with men” makes the most sense, if we want to be honest about it.
I’m also amused at the assumption that a rapey guy will rape regardless of what’s he told (because he’s just that evil, yo), but then we’re also supposed to believe Rapey Guy will give up his pursuit if he finds no drunk chicks to attack (because apparently his evil sex drive is not contest for his laziness and lack of ambition).
I’m confused by your incredulousness here. You think that a horny, drunk man who takes sexual advantage of a woman because they are both drunk and together, is probably going to go hunting for non-drunk women to rape violently if he cannot find a drunk woman to take advantage of?
I don’t think that you’re stupid. If you think that I am, all things being equal, I feel like you might as well not argue with me, you know?
I wasn’t confused. You asked me where I disagreed with you. Where I disagree with you is on whether or not the comparison of a drunk person’s personal bodily integrity with a stack of cash that is just barely this side of abandoned to the public is reasonable. I didn’t say anything about what you think is deserved or justified; you already made clear your position on that. But you also made clear that you think that it is foolish to just-about hand your property to a stranger, and that in much the same sense, you think it’s foolish to just-about hand your body over to a stranger by getting drunk. You made a comparison.
And I’m attempting to make clear that I don’t think that’s a reasonable comparison, because the violation involved in having sexual intercourse with another person is not remotely analogous to the violation involved in reaching into a window and grabbing some bills. It trivializes what a physical assault is to suggest that being in a place and not being able to defend myself physically is the same as essentially setting up a trick-or-treat basket with my money in it.
Who said anything about “rape violently”? There is a lot of room between raping a woman who is passed-out-on-the-floor drunk and overtaking a sober stranger.
But anyway. Perhaps a guy who can’t find a drunk chick will be that much more inclined to spike an unattended glass (even one that contains only soda!). Or perhaps he’ll go find a prostitute or a hitchhiker to rape. Or a 13 year-old girl. If he wants to rape so badly that he’s willing to risk jail and his reputation over it, he will find a way to scratch that itch, right? Or does this argument only fly when we’re searchng for reasons why PSA’s targeted to offenders is unnecessary?
Alcohol lowers inhibitions, I think we all can agree with this. Is it really out of there to think a sober guy is less likely to rape than one whose inhibitions have been lowered? The sad sack who normally would be too awkward to get within 5 feet of a woman might be willing to do that and a lot more with some liquid courage on board. And if he’s a mean drunk, you get the bonus of aggression in addition to poor judgement and whatever other dysfunctional thoughts he has in his head.
Well, what happens for you if I simplify and strengthen my comparison? What if I say it’s foolish, in the same way and or the same reason, to get so drunk that you’ve just-about handed over both your body and your cash to nearby strangers who’d still be utterly in the wrong?
You say it’s an unreasonable comparison. I say your trick-or-treat basket comparison is the unreasonable one, since it sidesteps what I see as the all-important equivalence when it comes to deserved and justified and all the rest: that you’re not giving consent to a criminal who then assaults your body or steals your money.
I’d sue you, and do my best to see you behind bars, if you broke my bones or burned down my house; if you raped me or robbed me; if you stole my car or my kidney. In that sense, I see them as analogous – and in the sense that you’d still be the one at fault, in any of those circumstances, even if you only ever succeeded because I was too drunk to stop you.
I don’t see that as trivializing anything; I’m merely reminded of how Jefferson so easily moved from it neither picks my pocket to nor breaks my leg. One of course suggested the other to him, as sure as someone doing either is reprehensible.
Maybe it’s just because I’m a my-body-is-my-property kind of guy, I dunno.
Ha. Jefferson also skipped through all four of “burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned” fairly easily, but I don’t take that as evidence that there’s a strong equivalence among the four. Some are worse.
Nobody denies that it’s dumb to get falling-down drunk. It’s dumb to get that drunk because you might fall and hit your head, you might die of alcohol poisoning, you might get a tattoo, you might walk in front of a bus, you might agree to purchase a monkey, you might leave your cellphone somewhere and somebody might take it. And it’s also dumb because of whatever percentage of sexual assaults you’d be able to fend off when more sober. But Jesus Christmas, the post you were responding to was about a girl getting roofied because she stopped actively watching her drink for a second. At some point you have to stop defending yourself and live your life, no? Nobody ever gave me the equally “good” advice that I’m less likely to get the shit beaten out of me by bouncers if I never get drunk, even though it’s clearly true - I’m faster and more agile when I’m sober. My belief is that nobody has ever given me that advice because, you know, why would anybody just up and assault me, really? There’s no tacit understanding that my face is, as a matter of course, out there just-about handed over to be punched if I don’t have my defenses prepared. Whereas I think women are supposed to accept the “reality” that their physical integrity has to be assumed to be in play. Not that it’s right, just, you know, that’s how it is! And I don’t think that’s all right.
Sure some are worse; that’s why it’s an analogy. I note, though, that it’s worse for me to break all of your limbs than one of 'em; that it’s worse to steal all of your money than half of it; and so on, and so what? Doing so remains reprehensible and criminal and unjustified, and you don’t deserve any of it – and if nobody ever told ***you *** that getting way too drunk can land you in unjustified trouble you don’t deserve, I’m happy to relay that advice now.
It’s not right, you understand; it’s just how it is: folks might rough you up, or swipe your wallet, or take sexual liberties with you, if you get too drunk to resist. They’d still be the ones at fault, but I’d still advise you against it.
This is a rather extreme distortion of what the article recommends - an accurate summary of which would be along the lines of “don’t drink to the point where you’ve lost control of your actions and judgment”.
Suppose the event will be attended by a bunch of normally horny guys. Most of the time there is nothing “rapey” about them. But when they are decently drunk their ability to properly evaluate the willingness of a drunken woman may not be the best.
Would you go? Would your decision as to how much to drink be affected? What would be your advice to, say, your 18-year-old niece if she asked you about attending such an event?
Yes, it’s emotionally coerced. Maybe I’m just colored by the fact that everyone I know that happened to resulted in threats of suicide if they said no. Even the couple that didn’t have had breakups threatened on the spot if it didn’t happen then and there.
What I don’t get is why anyone would want to get so drunk they have no ability to defend themselves in a public area?
Is that “cool” these days?
“These days?” People have been getting shitfaced since ancient Sumeria.
I spent most of my 20s getting blackout drunk, i would lose entire hours that i would not remember the next day and do things i wouldn’t have done otherwise. And my friends always insisted i was fully active and aware, drunks yes but far different from roofied. I’m sure i had sex with equally drunk girls and i strongly feel that neither of us got raped in that situation. “Blacked out” is not the same as “passed out”.
Can you remind me again why are we only tellng women this? Is it because women are less likely to realize that “losing control of their actions and judgement” are bad things? Is it because women are less risk averse than men and more reckless?
I mean, maybe I would understand the need for such targeted warnings if women weren’t already raised to fear everything from spiders to heights from age 0–while men are told to fear only the appearace of fearfulness. But alas, that isn’t the case: women are already lectured to about watching themselves at all times and men are encouraged to grab life by the horns. I feel sorry for any woman who applauds more of this upside-down finger wagging claptrap. What is in us that makes us craves being condescended to?
So wouldn’t it make the most sense if we advise men not to get plastered? It’s their judgement that matters here, right?
If a normally horny guy can be transformed into a rapist after a few drinks, then why should any woman socialize with them, sober or not? I mean, dude will still be able to overpower her, and even if he doesn’t sucessfully rape her, he could paw at her and do other violating things. And yet, all of this should be ignored in favor of telling her not to get drunk? Really? At a certain point it should become obvious that focus here is misplaced.
If my niece asked me whether she should attend a party full of experienced and aspiring rapists, I would advise her not to go. If my niece asked me whether she should go to a party with some guy acquaintances and friends, I would tell her to be safe and have fun. If she’s 18, that means no drinking, period. Rape ain’t got nothing to do with this.
And while it is true that it takes less alcohol to intoxicate women than men (all other things equal),men are twice as likely to binge drink than women.
And yet it’s the ladies who need to reign it in and play it safer? Right.
Are we? Who here is claiming it’s a good idea for men to be falling-down drunk?
To what extent is this advice followed among college students?
No one is advocating guys getting falling-down drunk–but show me the articles and PSAs and seminars where men are told to only have a few drinks in an evening and sip those, to make sure they don’t get too drunk and lose their judgement/awareness. Our advice to young men re: drinking seems to mostly consist of “Don’t give yourself alcohol poisoning.”
And in all seriousness, if a guy has such alcohol impairment he can’t tell if he’s raping someone or not–it ain’t the woman in the situation who needs to back off the booze.
It’s as if we’re upset about the number of wrecks at this intersection where people exceed the speed limit and/or ignore the traffic control device, and our response is to educate people about how they can drive defensively to avoid getting hit by the speeders who run the light. Except people would scream bloody fucking murder about focusing on how not to be a victim–they’d acknowledge the merits of defensive driving, but rightly insist that the primary focus be on getting people to stop speeding and obey the traffic lights.
I would like to state for the record that I find any suggestion that mine or anyone else’s vagina should be or will be considered public property fit for the taking should alcohol pass our lips to be repugnant, and anyone who advances such a view is repugnant and ought to think over their lives and beliefs.
I also feel that certain persons in this thread keep trying to derail the discussion by focusing on tangentially related things or playing the “Yes, but…” and “I’m just trying to be helpful!” games, and that shit is not cute.
I also find it worth noting that, after sharing my and my friend’s stories, certain posters kept picking at my friend’s story or trying to imply that she in some way deserved what she got in a faux-concerned headshaking “kids today” sort of way, while no one had anything to say about my story, which I can only presume is because I wasn’t drunk and thusly don’t fit into the role of rapeable whore in the narrative that certain people are trying to promote. The point of my story is that a woman may be attacked, at any time, drunk or not, at a party or not, while going about her daily activities that are neccesary to survival (such as leaving work). All the well-meaning advice in the world is not going to keep me safe, because its not realistic – I can’t live my life confined to a tower with a chastity belt on. I have to go out into the world. After awhile, it comes across as less like well-meaning advice and more like heavy-handed judgment; “do this, or you’ll suffer the consequences, and you’ll deserve what you get, and I won’t feel sorry for you at all.”
I think there is also a disturbing subtext to the idea that rapists are inhuman monsters who can never be changed, nuh uh, can’t be done, no sirree. When in fact, time and time again, education and awareness HAS changed many things. We no longer go to segregated schools. It is no longer acceptable to be openly racist. It is no longer acceptable to beat one’s spouse. It was not so long ago that any number of these things were accepted as a matter of course and there was little concept of it changing. But people did say, “This needs to change”, and after a great deal of blood, sweat, and tears, changes were made. These changes were imperfect and may not have gone far enough, it is true, but it is a damn sight better than what we had 20, 30, or 200 years ago.