Suggestion that women moderate drinking to avoid getting assaulted met with extreme outrage - Why?

In My Humble Opinion
101

Women face more danger from sexual assault, but not from drinking. These are two different problems. There are more factors involved in whether someone gets sexually assaulted besides the victim being intoxicated. However, the author goes after drinking because its easier to tell people to stop drinking instead of teaching them how to prevent sexual assault.

In the author’s response to her criticism she says that she “made a statement about wanting to warn women that there are rapists who use alcohol, not violence, to commit their crimes.” However, the article and its title tell women to avoid drinking without telling them how to avoid drinking in order to prevent sexual assault.

I do not think telling women to stop getting drunk is best way to prevent sexual assault. I think that focusing on drinking ignores much more relevant risk factors in sexual assault, such as the assailant being someone the victim already knows and trusts.

I guarantee you that if you read the article without knowing that most assailants have prior relationships with victims, you’ll think that the advice is not to get drunk around people you don’t know. If a woman is at home with her boyfriend, she won’t think that getting drunk will put her at risk for sexual assault after reading this article. And if that woman gets raped by her boyfriend because she was drunk, then the problem isn’t that she got drunk. Even if you want to blame her behavior, the biggest problem is that she did not know she was dating a rapist.

102

I can understand that and don’t think they are, either. I also agree with the rest of your post. I do think some claims are being made which are overextending preconceived ideas, and so you have a situation where people are extracting what they want to confirm. I say this because the author very directly addresses who is to blame, and started with the idea that it’s a touchy subject, showing that she was at least conscious of the issue of victim blaming. From there, IMO, the tone was set: I understand that this can get borderline, but her intentions will lean in the interest of the victim and precaitopm, whether or not she can best express them.

The title certainly doesn’t help, because it damages much of her content, and it should be changed.

[Added bolding]

We’ll have to agree to disagree, then. I’ll acknowledge the idea that her tone was a potential problem, but seeing as how it can be interpreted multiple ways, I would rather place more stock in what she’s actually stated, as that’s all we can confirm: “Let’s be totally clear: Perpetrators are the ones responsible for committing their crimes, and they should be brought to justice.”.

Yes, it may or may not have been enough to satisfy others, but I read with the understanding that she wanted to maintain focus on drinking among women, with some additional information to support her stance. I think she did so well enough that it didn’t fall into the category of victim blaming, and certainly not intentional where/if it did.

103

Because SHE is the one more damaged by the rape.

It’s not about responsibility. It’s that a rape has potentially devastating consequence to the victim far greater than those to the rapist. Again, the consequences TO HER of a miscalculation/bad decision (getting drunk) are greater than they are to him.

Obviously, neither one should be having drunk sex with someone they barely know. But he can zip up and walk away an asshole. Maybe he will be prosecuted and go to prison (if he’s on* L&O:SVU* and Olivia Benson is on his trail). She will be deeply traumatized, possibly physically injured temporarily or permanently, as well as possibly pregnant.

104

And I think it’s just as telling that in a column of almost 3,000 words, that’s the extent of her commentary on the responsibility of rapists.

But we’re talking about why she chose that focus. You can’t just take that off the table.

I didn’t say she did blamed anyone intentionally or otherwise. And no, I don’t think that was her intent. We’re talking about the context and the effect of what she said, not just good intentions. Intent matters in communication, but it’s not the only thing that matters.

That sounds like a good reason to make more of an effort to educate guys on this issue. Assuming guys are potential predators, even if it can protect women in some cases (which nobody disputes), is just not good enough. If you assume guys are animals, you end up taking the responsibility off them because animals aren’t responsible for their actions.

105

From where I’m sitting, though, it also isn’t clear to me what the title should be. It always seems to me that it can oddly difficult to get to what someone’s point really is when they talk about this stuff. The whole piece is pretty non-commital about how or whether this proposed method of prevention is actually going to be effective. For instance, Joffe talks about how alcohol is “associated” with sexual assault. She says 80% of sexual assaults “involve” alcohol, and then that “frequently” both parties have been drinking (she actually says both “the man” and “the woman,” but let’s give her credit for being more enlightened than that).

But if the point is supposed to be about a loss of agency - of responsibility, in fact - and about how a young woman today 1. needs to be and 2. isn’t being taught that when she gets wasted, she’s putting herself in peril, that’s not really getting us to any kind of causal relationship. How often is the victim of sexual assault blackout drunk? That’s the idea, right? If you just don’t get blackout drunk, you’ll be able to prevent yourself from getting raped? If that’s not the point, then I don’t know that there is a point. But Joffe doesn’t really say that. Her mechanism for change is

Which, well, hmm. So she’ll know what’s going on around her, and we “hope” that makes a difference? We’re sort of insisting on this empowerment theme here; this idea that potential victims are masters of their own fate, and that that’s important and feminist and forward-thinking. And again, that’s fine, as far as it goes. But it doesn’t seem to go anywhere - there’s not even a claim here that actual sexual assaults can be prevented, only that we ‘hope.’ And when stuff doesn’t seem to go anywhere, it’s sort of natural to question what’s motivating it.

106

Again - so? Why should a piece of valid advice be denigrated because it addresses one part of a problem instead of another?

It isn’t.

Regards,
Shodan

107

I’m just repeating the second writer I linked to here, but the “trickle down” thing is especially bizarre. If women on campus drink less, maybe men will just start drinking less? Why would that happen? Yoffe even cited a piece that showed that young men used to drink more than young women- the fact that young men were drinking less didn’t deter the men at all!

Asked and answered repeatedly.

108

Rapists are notoriously bad at taking advice when it comes to not raping people.

109

Almost as if they expect their behavior to be excused or written off.

110

Do you believe that? Because I certainly don’t. I simply deny that there is any sort of implication of that catch-22 in anything I said, and I think you’re inventing a conclusion out of incorrect premises. In fact, I think that conclusion is without basis in anything that anyone has said in this thread.

Plus this argument embraces a fundamental logical error: I’m basically saying that rapists are bad people; and you’re saying that someone might believe that if someone is a good person, they aren’t a rapist. That doesn’t logically follow at all, because it’s the same logical error as stating: “All men are human. Michelle Obama is not a man, therefore she isn’t human.” Clearly that’s wrong.

But what you’re doing is taking a twisted, illogical argument and using it to say, in essence, that nobody should posit that “all men are human,” because someone might erroneously conclude that Michelle Obama isn’t human. However, the fact remains that all men are human, rapists are bad; and any misuse of those two statements does not change the fundamental truth of them.

My conception of a someone who commits sexual assault is someone who has the constitution to violently attack someone else in a sexual manner, for which actual sexual assault is the sine qua non. It squares perfectly with your earlier comment about rapists are rapists because they commit sexual assault. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

111

I don’t believe it was telling, because that would introduce the idea that she really wrote all of this with an ulterior motive. Later in your post you express: “I didn’t say she did blamed anyone intentionally or otherwise. And no, I don’t think that was her intent.”. So if it’s telling (of what?), but not her intent to victim blame (which others have said it harbors on), then I’m unable to follow what you’re getting at.

I do, however, think her direct faulting of rapists was a necessary addition to her article, in an attempt to directly point out the source of a problem. More importantly, the title of her article was addressing college women getting drunk, and as poor as the title wording was, the content maintained focus on the subject.

If her article was titled “College Men: Stop Getting Drunk”, I’d more expect it to focus on men (but not necessarily rapists).

In post #97, I expressed that she likely chose to focus on women, because her cites and research determined that binge drinking was on the rise among women, and that risk reduction programs don’t emphasize, enough, the link between excessive alcohol consumption and sex crimes. Respectfully, I’ve placed it on the table for discussion, not removed it.

Intention isn’t the only thing that matters, but it’s one of the more objective points any of us can establish, at this time, without the author’s presence. She further elaborated in her response to critics, as well.

There is also a shift in context taking place, by taking what she wrote and applying it to something she hasn’t expressed. She’s already outlined the context for us, and it has to do with binge drinking among college women and precautionary behavior. Her intent is/was to prevent sexual assault, with a focus on the victim, who bears more of the burden and trauma. To derive from that, that the perpetrator is implied to be less at fault, boldly contradicts very specific claims which counter the idea.

Jimmy Chitwood,

Excellent points (#105). Though I somewhat differ on a few of your ideas, there isn’t enough that I disagree with to labor a point.

112

It’s telling because it illustrates the problem with framing the discussion this way: you spend minimal time saying that rape is bad and the fault of rapists (which it definitely is) and lots of time on hopeful solutions based on protecting individual women (which might work). Again, I’m not all that interested in commenting on Yoffe’s motives. They’re not all that relevant. I am sure her intentions were good, but her delivery was flawed. The major topic here is how this conversation is framed, not Yoffe herself.

Again, the source of the problem got one sentence and the behavior of the victims and potential victims got essentially the entire article minus one sentence. I don’t think that’s smart.

She could have written that article and didn’t. She could have written something that focused on the risks to both genders and didn’t. It’s not like her piece just appeared in a vacuum.

It’s just not that important here. Sorry. In any event you’re defending her against an accusation I didn’t make in the first place. Perhaps we can stop that now.

The context that’s being applied is the broader context for discussions of sexual assault and responsibility and what is implied and communicated by different ways of talking about this issue. The fact that she made one de rigueur comment - which I am sure she meant, mind you - does not render all of that irrelevant.

113

But SHE has no control over what anyone else does. She can only control her own behavior, whether she is protecting herself from animals or “animals.”

Your logic is MIGHTILY flawed.

114

Other people have control over what they do, but she’s the only one being asked to take responsibility and control the situation.

115

I don’t see any problem. She writes an article which makes one mention of something that nobody disputes, and spends the rest of it talking about something that might help. This is a problem?

No, you haven’t explained it. You are merely repeating yourself.

Why is that not smart? Why is it that writing an article about rape that offers a suggestion on how to reduce the risk of being raped less smart than simply repeating “men are to blame” again? You said yourself that the solution Yoffe makes might work. So why the focus on talking about how she shouldn’t be saying it?

How would an article blaming rape on rapists help a young woman avoid getting raped because of binge drinking in ways that advising her not to binge drink would not?

Regards,
Shodan

116

Eh - I encourage telling men not to rape, but I don’t think alcohol is much of a factor in that if a man is already convinced that rape is bad. I’ve been everything from “buzzed” to “passed out on a buddy’s sofa, next to a bucket,” and never even contemplated raping anyone.

Why?

Because I’m a decent human being, that’s why.

117

The entire message of the article was that rape is bad, so I wouldn’t say attention on it was minimal. I agree, the solutions are hopeful, but I don’t see how any solution isn’t hopeful, under the circumstances.

Let’s be honest: should we not teach precaution, because it’s favorable to label criminals as criminals, and hope that does enough to deter cases? Clearly not, and so that’s why I feel this article has a place. It’s not the ultimate solution, but it does push awareness and suggests that moderation can be beneficial. That’s a reasonable stance.

I’ve previously agreed to disagree on the tone of the article, so I’ll respectfully bow out from the rest of our discussion. I think, overall, we know what the issue is and who to blame. We merely disagree on how to properly approach the discussion of the solution(s).

Cheers!

118

Really? What about (for example) the article’s mention of the culture of binge drinking? The discussion of the problems associated with this in no way excludes men.

119

Well, no, it doesn’t square perfectly, in my experience. I obviously am not qualified to speak to what your beliefs are, and since you’re certain that your conception of who commits sexual assaults maps to reality, I’ll take your word for it. But not everyone’s does. Not everyone’s idea of who has “the constitution to violently attack someone else in a sexual manner” has room in it for your typical college-campus date rapist who just sort of asserts themselves on an unwilling but not-violently-resistant victim. Very often, when people talk about rapists, they’re focusing on the idea of violent attack and the idea of a rapist as a violent attacker, and excluding quite a large number (the majority, in fact) of actual people who have committed actual sexual assaults. The simple fact is that this happens all the time – “legitimate rape” and so on. This holds especially true when they’re talking about their own conduct, as monstro’s NPR link above demonstrates. If you’re not doing this, then you’re not doing it, and it’s just unfortunate that you’re using the same language.

I’m not making the logical mistake you’re attributing to me at all, by the way. If all rapists are bad people, then a good person obviously cannot be a rapist. I don’t think it’s worth fighting over, though.

120

You made that clear. I think I’ve done plenty of explaining the issue here, and there’s even more explanation in the articles I linked to. I see no point in engaging with the same question over and over, so I won’t.

That’s not the message of the article. The message is that women at colleges should drink less so they’re less likely to be raped. It’s a given that rape is bad.

I have not said one word against teaching precaution.

I don’t think it pushes any awareness. As I said, the message is as commonplace as can be.

Need I say more than ‘yes, that was mentioned?’ The binge drinking culture wasn’t the primary focus here. Perhaps it should have been. The primary focus was the connection between women drinking and being sexually assaulted. I think an article that addressed binge drinking in general and talked about its links to sexual violence and other problems would have been a lot more balanced because that emphasizes the fact that everybody puts themselves at risk when they get wasted and that everybody can take responsibility for their own drinking. Instead, Yoffe wound up writing that women need to drink less because someone might rape them.