Well, it's the same here in jolly old CT. A guy is in prison for the rest of his life because of it. Society has managed to criminalize "morning regret".

Which is why your contract proposition won't fly. Someone who is too impaired to consent to sex is also too impaired to sign a binding contract.

I wonder if the law allows for a woman to rape a man because he's too drunk to consent. Naaah, that would be silly.

Ah, very good point. It was actually an idea I had for sports stars and celebs in the past.

A husband a wife go to a party and have a couple of drinks, go home, have sex. A few days later he pisses her off royally.

She claims she couldnt consent to have sex.

Why go thru a messy divorce when you could have him thrown in prison first?

Why settle foe half the assetts when you can get them all?

I wonder if guys did start turnning down drunk chicks, do you suppose some of them would be mad enough to cry rape in anger of rejection?

Or better yet, if a woman cannot be trusted to know she's had too much to drink, then it stands to reason that women ought to be forbidden from consuming adult beverages.

Or they could grow up.

I'm just sayin'

I would imagine there still has to be some actual evidence sex took place, lujlp.

Good morning Amy,
This is nothing new. The tag may be different, the wrapping may be different, the ribbon may be different... but it's still the same box of Misandry that's been foisted on a complacent society for the past 50 years.
I mean think of the parallels, once again a law is passed granting a gender en totalle complete exculpability for a bad choice based on nothing more than the whimsies of the individual involved... while denying the other gender any defense other than hearsay and supposition (unless they happened to have a breathalyzer handy) while at the same time reinforcing the 'predatory nature' perception of that gender despite the utter absence of supporting evidence of that perception as recorded in a wide range of academic/scholastic research.
Or think of it this way: if office mail clerk tried to claim he was raped by his department manager after having downed a few beers at the office picnic.
The fallacy of this manner of legislation is quickly and easily exposed by merely inverting the genders in the proposed scenarios these laws are drafted to protect women from.
Sexual Assault is already illegal, let's not criminalize merely being born male by expanding the definition of rape to encompass every conceivable variation of the act of sex itself (if she decides 29 days later it wasn't to her liking).
Gads!
And peeps wonder why men are increasingly choosing to avoid getting involved with women (review the marriage stats of men 20 ~ 29... down 9% from a scant 8 years ago) on any level.
It's not a matter of men are immature 'Peter Pans' who refuse to grow up but rather a matter of men are waking up to just how vulnerable they are (and the gravity of the consequences) to malignant women.
Gunner Retired

The correct answer for sexual regret: Tell yourself not to drink so damn much next time, and/or Krazy Glue your zipper shut.

Oooooooooo, spit like this makes me mad!!
And I've known girls ('cause if they're playing this stupid game, they ain't women!) that have accused guys of rape for the very reason lujlp stated: they were pissed off at the guy! It's so much high school bullshit. One girl I knew was bound and determined to make this one guy's life miserable by doing just that - he turned her down and she wanted him in jail! She wanted to ruin his freakin' life because he didn't want to fuck her! I couldn't believe it. And she wanted me to help her! I managed to talk her out of it (took me about 3 days of intensive, heart-to-heart talks with her, and close to 2 bottles of tequila, not to mention the many joints), but how many vindictive bitches are out there that actually plot to do the same? It turns my stomach. I've been mad at guys before, but I find the best revenge is living better than they are, and letting them see that you are. YMMV

"It is a curious law that says alcohol only affects the cognitive abilities of women."

If a woman decides to drive drunk, her male passenger is the one who should be charged. After all, even if it's something she wants to do, he is responsible for her behaviour even if he is equally drunk.

"a discount legal document to have his dates sign to say it's consensual. Oh yeah -- followed by the in-home breathalysers test. Mmmm, sexy!"

As I read through this post I thought "Now we need to have contracts and breathalysers tests before screwing!"

Lo and behold you beat me to it!

I remember my "freshman orientation" class. They basically said to the guys: if you know a girl has gone within 10 feet of booze, STAY THE FUCK AWAY. Meanwhile, they put a huge emphasis on this new idea of "date rape." This was always idiotic to me. Rape is rape, right? Doesn't matter if it's a drug dealer in a back alley or your husband - if you don't consent to the act and it's forced upon you that's rape.

But at college there was an emphasis on the wishy washey. Aka: REGRET was grounds enough to have a guy kicked out of college, thereby swiftly and disturbingly marking him with a scarlet R (rapist) and ruining his life.

Hot chick: So why didn't you graduate college? Too much drinking?
Rapist: No, I met nice girl. We hit it off. We did it. She felt like a slut the next day and said I raped her.
Hot chick: I have to get back to the convent...

"while at the same time reinforcing the 'predatory nature' perception of that gender despite the utter absence of supporting evidence of that perception as recorded in a wide range of academic/scholastic research."

What research would that be? All research shows that sexual predators of every bent are 95% male overall, with certain subsets (pedophilia, violent sex crimes) having up to 99% male offenders. So, yes, let's profile the ones who are the most likely to offend. I don't agree a man should go to prison because a woman had a few drinks with him and wanted to, but I do agree it deserves punishment if she is so drunk she can not walk or talk coherently and any male with any brains would say no there anyway. Yes, a woman should control her own alcohol intake-so should men! But she's not responsible for someone deciding to have sex with her when she can't communicate. Look at it this way: you get drunk, you stumble out of a bar, someone mugs you and takes you wallet. You should have known better than to get that drunk, but it's still illegal for the person to take your wallet. Even if you were too drunk to resist the mugger.

And "drunk rape" if that's what you want to call it, is quite prevalent, or was where I went to school. Frat parties were basically boys plying girls with tons and tons of deceptive alcohol (punch made with everclear, for example) so they could have sex with them. How pathetic are you if you feel you have to do that to get sex??

And how stupid are you if you fall for it?

The fact that women continue to fall for it tells me one of two things: they want to, or they are too stupid or immature to say no.

Neither alternative is terribly flattering.

To confuse the issue even more: part of the whole game is the man chasing the woman and the woman playing "hard to get". As I recall the saying from my teenage years: "'no' means 'maybe' and 'maybe' means 'yes'".

Do they have jury nullification in Australia? Cases brought under this law would be good candidates.

Farrar,

Were you the only person aware that there was everclear in the booze? I might put everclear on par with roofies, but something tells me that is wasn't any sort of secret. If girls show up to those frat parties, weekend after weekend after weekend, and it's clear what goes on, then anyone who attends assumes the risks.

If a chick is PASSED OUT she CANNOT consent. That's obvious. But I hold her accountable for making a poor choice to drink from an open container. Stupid!

But if she's smashed, and touching the guy's crotch and willingly follows him upstairs and does it with him he can't be held accountable for not being able to read her deeply seated emotions. He assumes (and hopes) she's looser than usual. Of course it doesn't give him a license to RAPE her but her impairment and subsequent, rearing-to-go 'tude is HER problem. He's just counting his blessings.

The key word there was "deceptive", Brian. How can a woman "want to" if she doesn't know there's alcohol in the punch? How is not knowing there's alcohol in the punch being stupid or immature? My daughter doesn't drink alcohol and has no desire to. So, she's stupid or immature or wants to have sex if she doesn't know there's alcohol in the punch? WTF?

In case anyone has been out of college for too long, let's do a quick review of the rules:

1) Never accept and open drink. Pump your own watery beer.
2) Never put your open container down, walk away and come back to it. Assume there's a roofie in it.
3) Don't assume all men are evil rapists. It only takes one. And no, you can't overpower a 200 lb. man when you're drunk. Self defense classes endanger women by giving them a false sense of empowerment. It takes years to develop true fighting skills and REFLEXES. A one hour class isn't going to embed something into your system of reflexes. If someone wants to rape you he will probably be able to.
4) Yes means yes. It means no take-sie-back-sies the next day. No means no. And if you truly mean "no" SCREAM IT. SCRATCH HIM. Show him you mean it. a) He might be so drunk he doesn't think you're serious b/c you just put your mouth on his dick b) it increases the chance for a conviction if there was a struggle and someone heard you.

Flynne, your daughter is a minor. An 18-22 year old at a frat party should know better than to accept punch. Also, as I mentioned before, someone attending these parties knows what to expect.

Even sober minors can't "consent" to sex. Moot point.

Flynne:

So, she's stupid or immature or wants to have sex if she doesn't know there's alcohol in the punch? WTF?

No, she's immature, or stupid, or fully intends to get smashed, and damn the consequences.

There are a certain set of base assumptions one ought to have when attending certain types of party.

One of those assumptions is that OF COURSE the punch is spiked. Isn't that the whole intention of the punch in the first place? "Deceptive" alcohol? What the fuck is that? Spiking her wine cooler with a shot of grain?

I'm going to assume that your daughter won't be attending parties with the wrong assumptions in her mind. You seem entirely too intelligent to let her go out unarmed.

I'm with Flynne on this one and here's why. Having been in ENG I can say that there are very creative ways to hide booze in a girls drink. MIT frat house they had a fridge with vac sealed and heat shrink wrapped Nantucket Nectars Iced Tea. Completely indistinguishable from the store bought stuff till you popped the cap. Loaded with at least ever clear if not other things.

BTW why are you going to a frat house party unless it's to get drunk and crazy? It's not like they have all this magical shit there, it's just a bunch of guys trying to get laid.

"He might be so drunk he doesn't think you're serious b/c you just put your mouth on his dick" Huh now here's a grey area for me. If you have no desire to sleep with him why are you chowing on his sausage?

I'm going to assume that your daughter won't be attending parties with the wrong assumptions in her mind. You seem entirely too intelligent to let her go out unarmed.

True that, Brian, and thank you for saying so. She's not in college yet, but she's been going to parties and concerts with her friends, and I give her the full run-down before I let her out the door. And I always tell her to be on the look-out for assholery and dumbfuckery wherever she goes. She knows what I mean. She's a smart cookie and shall remain so, if I have anything to say about it. Her sister, too.

"If you have no desire to sleep with him why are you chowing on his sausage?"

...and that's how a lot of "grey area" rapes happen. Shit gets confusing after your 10th beer. I've met some chicks who find it easier to vilify a dude than own up to the fact she acts like a whore when she's drunk. Or sober for that matter.

I had one (ex-) friend like this. Accused a friend of mine of raping her - whilst I watched t.v. in 10 feet away (AND THE DOOR WAS OPEN. Who leaves the door open during sex?). He got off, in two ways.

She went on to write a play for her high school campers to perform at the end of the summer one year. I was a character in it. I was the evil friend who "testified against her"...all I did was answer two questions "No I didn't hear yelling" "No she didn't tell me she was raped afterwards."

And this is the problem with consent.

If a woman grabs my junk and says "fuck me", isn't that consent? If I don't want to bang her, have I been raped?

:s/consent/implied consent/

the problem with IMPLIED consent.

And this is the problem with consent.

Well, who pulled down your zipper? If she did, that's consent, on her part. SHE made it known she was a willing particpant. If you did, that's consent, on your part, and unless she told you to zip it back up, she knew what was coming (pardon the pun). If she did tell you to put it back in your pants, but you didn't, your bad. But if she unzipped you, all bets are off, baby. Ultimately, YOU are the one who has control over your own zipper. To give her control over it, well, you probably shouldn't, unless you're willing to accept the consequences.

farrar writes: "What research would that be? All research shows that sexual predators of every bent are 95% male overall, with certain subsets (pedophilia, violent sex crimes) having up to 99% male offenders. So, yes, let's profile the ones who are the most likely to offend."
Amy... may I?
I think I can condense it to maybe only 15 pages... 20 tops.
G_R

This makes me angry because, yes, it's horrible for men, but it's also insulting to women. Poor little girls can't possibly be expected to know their own minds, figure out their limits and stick to them. It forces a kind of paternalism over women's choices that only encourages women to be victims. What about the time when I was in college and paid $5 for a hot dog because I was too drunk to count money properly? Can I have the male vendor charged with theft?

This makes me think of a recent column by right-wing columnist Kathryn Lopez, who argued against abortion on the grounds that women were being victimized and would regret the decision once they fully understood it.

I hope we can all agree that having sex with a woman that is passed out or nearly so is rape. Also that getting a woman drunk by deceiving her about the presence or amount of alcohol in a drink you give her and then having sex with her is rape.

The scary thing for me would be the idea that a man and a woman could both have a few drinks, have sex, and the next day she could think, "I wish I hadn't done that" and decide to charge him with rape and, under this law, probably put him in jail for a good, long time.

Imagine a scenario where a woman wants a divorce. After the separation, she is not happy with the financial settlement he is offering or that he wants joint custody of the kids. She asks him to meet her at a lounge to talk about it. After a few drinks, she comes on to him and goes back to his place. The next day he is arrested and charged with rape. She lets him know that she will drop the charges if he gives her a better settlement.

No, that couldn't happen, could it?

Steamer,
It has happened... would you like some names?
G_R

Damn it - why do a few idiots get to ruin it for the whole! What about the good women (like myself) who like to have a couple of drinks and hump a college boy ;)

It has happened... would you like some names?
G_R

Easy, there, G_R, I believe Steamer was being facetious. o_O

Flynne,
I've been 14 years archiving Misandry and related data, reports, studies, statistics, cases, etc, etc, etc. I have a rather sizeable volume of material to cull from here. The last time I backed up those files it took 2 CDs to hold it and it's all text files (how much text does it take to fill a CD?). This was prior to the DV/IPV symposium in Sacramento in Feb, and of course prior to the FLDS raid (what a debacle that's turning out to be) in Texas.
As for 'facetious' (I LOVE that word), I didn't get that impression... but it's open for discussion I suppose.
G_R

"No, that couldn't happen, could it?"

That part was meant to be facetious.

My step daughter was in a custody battle with her ex. A friend told her to just say that he hit her and she would probably get the kids. To her credit, she wouldn't lie.

G_R, when you say you've spent 14 years archiving Misandry and related data, that scares the crap outta me, because it makes you look like the worse kind of misogynist out there, and someone that I would rather stay very far away from. There's way too much of this tit-for-tat-women-are-evil-men-are-the-devil-incarnate crap going on! Why can't we learn to appreciate the finer things about each other and vilify those who deserve it on an individual basis?
I LOVE men, especially my BF, but there are some men that I could easily grind under my boot heel without a second thought. (Dennis Rodman comes to mind. Bret Michaels, too.) The mere fact that I don't do this at all should mean something, shouldn't it? I don't go spouting off all kinds of statistics about how men in general are abusive of women/children/animals, because I don't believe the majority of men are. But those who really are should be put out of circulation, at least. And so should the women who are abusive. Painting everyone with the same brush just perpetuates the madness. In my opinion. YMMV, of course.

I've been 14 years archiving Misandry and related data, reports, studies, statistics, cases, etc, etc, etc. I have a rather sizeable volume of material to cull from here.

Work - or hobby?

Flynne - I think the seed that sticks in some men's craw (including my own) is that some women in political power are managing to pass laws to give their misandry the power to destroy lives.

And after that's been accomplished, who could blame a girl for taking advantage of it and really putting the screws to her ex instead of just walking away and doing better without him?

But, Brian, it's so much easier to just walk away and do better without him - I'm living proof! Yes, Ex still does stupid shit that pisses me off, but I'm doing so much better without him, and as I said before, living well is the best revenge. Wasting so much time and energy being pissed off and "really putting the screws to" him just doesn't appeal to me.

Don't suppose you'd be open to discussing the difference between 'misogyny' and 'anti-misandry'... wouldja?
Then again why would a guy want to learn anything about misandry when he's has his family ripped apart and ejected from his childrens lives by a malignant woman with the fullest endorsement by TDCS and family court anti-male/anti-father (oft referred to as misandry) policies?
Would it surprise you to learn MRA/FRAs aren't born? Generally speaking us guy types become MRA/FRAs when we've been shat upon by the aforementioned organizations, most of us were family types until we found our faith in 'the system' shattered by the reality of how men are bulldozed by laws, policies, practices, etc based upon 4+ decades of lies and misinformation which has been meekly accepted by a complacent (if ignorant) society.
Some of us are rather fed up by it, and working to restore the meaning and value of a fathers role in the life of his family and children.
G_R

I'd blame her brian.

Don't suppose you'd be open to discussing the difference between 'misogyny' and 'anti-misandry'

I might be, if you could just take it a little easy, there. Some of us women DO get it, you know. As I said, "Why can't we learn to appreciate the finer things about each other and vilify those who deserve it on an individual basis?"

Is anyone else getting a weird format here today? Every photo & section are on a seperate line so I have to scroll WAY down before I get to the posts. Or is it just some new "feature" of our system here at work.

I'm getting a weird format here too, moreta, but it's more like there's no frames in the comment section. I can read everything, though. I thought I was the only one! o_O

Moreta - unfortunately for those of us out here in singleville, women such as you and Flynne who would rather act as adults are mostly taken, and we're left with to filter out the infantilized dregs who've become good enough at hiding it that we don't know what's hit us until after the cuffs go on.

The surprising turnabout here, however, is that most men who are abusive pieces of shit don't do much to hide the fact that they are assholes, yet they still get women to go for them.

If women stopped going for assholes we'd stop seeing the institutionalization of the "all men are rapists and predators" mindset.

None of which does a damn thing to stop people from going to jail for crimes that never occurred. And all of which makes real incidents of rape and abuse get taken less seriously.

Flynne -

"Why can't we learn to appreciate the finer things about each other and vilify those who deserve it on an individual basis?"

Because that would be too much like work. It's easier to grab the biggest brush you can, dip it in the can, and take a swipe.

God knows I'm guilty of doing just that. Because it's so much easier to write everyone off and walk away than take a chance of getting kicked in the nuts by a psycho.

Flynne,
"Why can't we learn to appreciate the finer things about each other and vilify those who deserve it on an individual basis?"
Now there's an easy question to answer... very easy in fact.
Ya want the Reader Digest (ie expurgated) version? Or the more complete and illustrative edition that covers the response in detail (provided Amy might allow me to post something on the order of 4,000 pages of pertinent material)?
G_R

Those are the news that tend to make me emotional. Since I am decent enough to not spam this blog with a ten-feet, "all caps" posts about men-related issues, I will not speak my mind here.

If women stopped going for assholes we'd stop seeing the institutionalization of the "all men are rapists and predators" mindset.

But, Brian, most women don't go for assholes deliberately; those assholes are way better at hiding it than some women are at hiding their golddigging tendencies!

Believe when I tell you that Borderline Personality Disorder people of BOTH genders are way good at hiding their agenda - once they set their sites on you, it's no holds barred. Do you honestly think women go looking for men to abuse them? Well, wait, maybe those with little to no self-esteem do. But women like me, until we learn to hone our bullshit meters, can easily get taken in by these very charming bastards! It happened to me twice. By the third and last one in my life, I was onto his shit and got out relatively unscathed. But, man, it was close! They play the game too damn well, some of them.

If women stopped going for assholes we'd stop seeing the institutionalization of the "all men are rapists and predators" mindset.

But, Brian, most women don't go for assholes deliberately; those assholes are way better at hiding it than some women are at hiding their golddigging tendencies!

Believe when I tell you that Borderline Personality Disorder people of BOTH genders are way good at hiding their agenda - once they set their sites on you, it's no holds barred. Do you honestly think women go looking for men to abuse them? Well, wait, maybe those with little to no self-esteem do. But women like me, until we learn to hone our bullshit meters, can easily get taken in by these very charming bastards! It happened to me twice. By the third and last one in my life, I was onto his shit and got out relatively unscathed. But, man, it was close! They play the game too damn well, some of them.

If women stopped going for assholes we'd stop seeing the institutionalization of the "all men are rapists and predators" mindset.

But, Brian, most women don't go for assholes deliberately; those assholes are way better at hiding it than some women are at hiding their golddigging tendencies!

Believe when I tell you that Borderline Personality Disorder people of BOTH genders are way good at hiding their agenda - once they set their sites on you, it's no holds barred. Do you honestly think women go looking for men to abuse them? Well, wait, maybe those with little to no self-esteem do. But women like me, until we learn to hone our bullshit meters, can easily get taken in by these very charming bastards! It happened to me twice. By the third and last one in my life, I was onto his shit and got out relatively unscathed. But, man, it was close! They play the game too damn well, some of them.

If women stopped going for assholes we'd stop seeing the institutionalization of the "all men are rapists and predators" mindset.

But, Brian, most women don't go for assholes deliberately; those assholes are way better at hiding it than some women are at hiding their golddigging tendencies!

Believe when I tell you that Borderline Personality Disorder people of BOTH genders are way good at hiding their agenda - once they set their sites on you, it's no holds barred. Do you honestly think women go looking for men to abuse them? Well, wait, maybe those with little to no self-esteem do. But women like me, until we learn to hone our bullshit meters, can easily get taken in by these very charming bastards! It happened to me twice. By the third and last one in my life, I was onto his shit and got out relatively unscathed. But, man, it was close! They play the game too damn well, some of them.

Sorry about the multiple post - I kept getting a text error!

Flynne,
Not to worry, Amy can clean it out (delete the multiples). I made a proper mess of things on another blog until I figured out a character was cutting the post off.
G_R

It is unfair that each divorce case isn't looked at on its own merits and that needs to be fixed; however, I do see examples of men (& women when the roles are reversed) not helping their own situation.

Case in point: My bro-in-law has to deal with a psycho ex -- refusing to work, hiding money when she does, hiding the new b/f, arguing continuously about what to do with the three boys when there is trouble, sharing all sorts of inappropriate info with the boys, etc. At the same time, I can see how he and his new wife could handle these challenges differently. I appreciate their frustration, but they continue to try reasoning & negotiating with her and when that fails its off to court. She will NEVER admit she's behaving poorly, so continuing to try to make their case won't get them anywhere except to keep her fires hot. She may be one of the few who will carry on tirelessly, but chances are if she doesn't get the response she wants, she will eventually get bored of tormenting them and move on to some other poor sucker. I know it can be hard to pick your battles, but turning every stupidity into a mountain doesn't help. Life isn't fair, she's a bitch...we all know that. How else would you expect her to behave?

Sorry -- we're supposed to be talking drunk sex. Guess I got off track on the Gunner/Flynee convo. Personally, I'm a fan of drunk sex. Oh, the one night stands I'd have missed out on if not for my wine goggles!

"Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) people of BOTH genders are way good at hiding their agenda" Actually it's one of the requirements of BPD. High self monitoring and outright manipulation are the whole crux of the disorder.

"But, Brian, most women don't go for assholes deliberately; those assholes are way better at hiding it than some women are at hiding their golddigging tendencies!" In my experience it's hard to see it that way. I spent much of my life helping women pick up the pieces from dating assholes. Which really pissed me off a few times when I wanted to date the girl in question (though in hind site I glad I didn't). One friend in particular won't touch a guy unless he bathes in Eu de asshole. Then she can't figure out why he's SURPRISE an asshole. I doubt most women of any age want assholes but when they are young they have trouble differentiating confidant from asshole.

Gold digging females are usually pretty obvious from the start. Her taste in jewelry is often a good indicator if paired with an outspoken desire to stay at home and not work. Any women that uses the words "taken care of" will send up warning signs. If she has good (expensive) tastes and no career or aspiration to achieve it is also a really good sign. This is the big one, if you (regardless of gender) have substantially more assets and when suggesting a pre-nup they fly off the handle run (assuming this is brought up well before the wedding).

moreta,
And that is why the misandry has been permitted to evolve to the despicable scourge it has become. Because each aspect manifestation has been treated as a unique dynamic.
The underlying cause is a contempt for males, and a complacent acceptence of increasingly broadened definitions of what constitutes 'rape' (not discounting of course, the accepted ideology that men can even BE victims of 'rape' perpetrated by a woman) until we have such laws as are discussed in Amys blog.
This law is merely one of many legislative acts further criminalizing men for merely being men, and exculpating women en totalle for responding to the same hormonal urges men are criminalized for responding to.
IN such discussions, an easy pointer to misandry is to merely invert the genders (ie substitute male for female, female for male etc) and try to refrain from laughing at the idiocy of the law.
Is there anyone else here who has actually READ such legislative tools of male gender oppression as the Mondale Act, the Amy Boyers Law, the VAWA/VAWA II, etc?
In premise they're good and needed laws... excepting they ignore utterly that they target men and men only as perpetrators of the evil they enact mandated procedures for and finance with tax payers money, while at the same time grant women free reign to fabricate allegations of heinoussness against men with no accountability for having done so (CAPTA for example literally grants immunity to False Accusers of crimes against children).
Gunner Retired

Flynne, I disagree with you on all that stuff. If women were as naive as you suggest, and men so cunning and brutal, all the women would be dead and there would be no babies. More the to point, the happier married women in my life don't correlate to those with trust issues, either by being more gullible or more suspicious. The happy people seem to know how to spot the feelings in the hearts of their intimate partners, and they don't have weird attitudes about it. (I was teasing Amy in the adjacent post, but I doubt Gregg resents toting her groceries.)

> Work - or hobby?

Exactly, Jody! Seriously, what's this guy's problem? Why does he need to catalog that much bitter material? (My collection's only nineteen megabytes... It's in a folder called "Paglia". And I share his text-files-only technique, which facilitates indexing and quick reference. An archive of this kind grows like a living, caustic treasure to be passed from father to son for many generations.)

"Personally, I'm a fan of drunk sex. Oh, the one night stands I'd have missed out on if not for my wine goggles!" Drunk sex has to be done a certain way. Slightly lowering of standards after a few drinks, aka relaxing is one thing. Getting tanked around people you don't know is a bit different. On the path to adulthood we learn out limits and when and when not to approach or cross them.

As far as the law it's kind of a mixed bag there. You have the people who trawl for drunks to take advantage of thus being a predator in the true sense of the word. There should be higher penalties for them. Then you have the dumb ass college kids (usually a freshmen) who get involved in a stupid situation. Neither of them are really guilty of anything but being young dumb and full of ... In this case the girl has a lot more leverage on her side which is wrong. Can anyone think of a happy medium?

Amy -

The correct answer for sexual regret: Tell yourself not to drink so damn much next time, and/or Krazy Glue your zipper shut.

One of my oldest friends and onetime fuck buddy decided in her mid-twenties that she wasn't going to sleep with guys, just because she happened to be drunk anymore. Her solution was to find pants with the most complicated closures she could - even modifying some of them to be more difficult. It worked well for the most part, though she ended up meeting a guy who had both the coordination and perseverance to actually get her out of her pants while completely and utterly shit-faced. She married him.

monica -

I am just wondering why no one else jumped on the insult to women implied in this law.

What really gets me here, is that I have been in a situation where I got wayyy too drunk and ended up in a sexual situation that I would have rather not been in. I was dealing with a number of personal issues at the time and was abstaining from the sex to help facilitate it.

So one evening we were having a party after my band played our largest crowd ever (at the time). I am drunk as can be and stoned out of my gourd. When things started to get out of hand, I was lying underneath the table with a couple of friends, writing what amounts to graffiti on the bottom of said table (the owner of the table was actually encouraging this). I was in the middle of drawing a rather rude sort of picture, when two friends pounced - one unclipped my pants, the other pulled them off of me. When I got out from under the table I noticed that nearly everyone was entirely naked, the rest being in various states of undress.

By the time it was over I had had sex with three different women and given a couple blowjobs for good measure.

Here's the thing; there wasn't a single person at the party who didn't know I was trying to maintain celibacy. On top of that, I found out later that this had been planned in advance by a couple of my friends (two of the women I sexed) who were on my list of fuck buddies and missed the action. They had actually intended to take advantage of me, when they knew I would be drunk but after talking with my best friend and rhythm player, they decided to shoot for an orgy.

Guess what? I wasn't raped. I chose to drink and smoke to extreme excess. I chose to party with people I have had sex with in the past and whom I know were frustrated by my decision to pursue celibacy. I chose to party with friends who were all getting very tired of my celibacy, because it was at least partly (mostly) responsible for me being such a cranky jerk.

This is not to say that alcohol cannot be used to commit rape. It happens. But the notion that people shouldn't fuck because they're drunk is absurd on it's face. For a lot of people, including women, getting drunk is just part of the ritual of fucking. And the notion that this is even close to limited to men taking advantage of women is absurd too. It happens, it's happened to me. Women are not above chasing after boys who are too drunk to really make a reasonable choice about who to go home with. Only one time was it really that bad for me, but I still didn't feel like I had been violated by anyone besides myself. (I woke up and was surrounded by black decor - everything in the room and on the women was black, including a rather large number of fake roses. The women was reasonably pretty, but very freakish in a way that I am really not into. I was sandwiched between her and her roomy, there was a pain in my groin and nine used condoms on the floor. It was very much like waking up from a nightmare, only to discover that someone has been dismembering you in your sleep and is smacking you with your own foot.)

Gunner: I can't find what VAWA/VAWA 2 is for certain and I agree the Mondale's law needs some serious rework. Amy Boyers Law I'm a strong supporter of for a number of reasons. You should not be able to get someones SS number just like you should not be able to get someones credit card number. How is protecting SS number a gender specific problem? Did they stop handing out SS numbers to a specific gender?

If women were as naive as you suggest, and men so cunning and brutal, all the women would be dead and there would be no babies.

Crid, I wasn't suggesting that all women are naive, nor was I suggesting that all men are cunning and brutal. There are people of BOTH sexes that are naive; there are also people of both sexes that are cunning and brutal. What I was saying is that some people need finely honed bullshit meters to tell the difference between the honest and the dishonest. It's one thing to be taken advantage of; it's another thing entirely to make a career out of taking advantage of others. YMMV

True, vlad. My one night stands were all with guys I knew before hand...just wasn't interested in that way until I'd had a couple. However, if I did get tanked with a bunch of people I didn't know...is that their fault? I'd say it was mine. Would I deserve to get raped? No. But if the last thing I remember was having a good time and chatting up everyone in the place and the next I wake up next to some guy I vaguely remember and he let's me get up and walk away...well "rape" is not the first thing to cross my mind. It's "Damn, that was stupid and did I ever get lucky!!"

What I want to know is this: Why is sex the only thing where a woman can get drunk, misbehave, and then blame the booze...and walk away without a stain on her character? I mean, look at it: if she gets drunk and trashes someone else's property, she's looking at vandalism charges at least; if she, the ghods forbid, drives drunk and gets caught, she doesn't get any special treatment because she lacks a Y chromosome. Why is drunk sex so different?

And some women do drink so they can say yes! For whatever reason, many women apparently still struggle internally with the idea that they want to have sex...and a few drinks loosen them up. Unfortunately, these days, many women think they have to drink even with the men, and men, for better or worse, generally have a much higher alcohol tolerance than women. So she drinks even with her guy, and when he's happy and buzzed, she's sloshed to the gills and not really in a place to make responsible decisions.

But, Brian, most women don't go for assholes deliberately;

Commonly heard response to date request: "I can't go out with you, you're too nice to me."

And then they proceed to throw themselves at the next asshole that shows up. And they know full well that they want the asshole.

Is it possible that I just meet an inordinate quantity of women with self-esteem problems? Or is it more likely that an inordinate quantity of women HAVE self-esteem problems?

the truth behind the truth is simple, too. A guy can get thrown in jail and have to 'splain his way out of it on the word/story of a woman. The more deranged and cunning she is, the worse it will be. Sure, there may never BE a conviction, but that doesn't change what has happened to him. If you don't drink, she had better be stone sober too, or you will be seen as a defacto predetor. I'd prolly be a sad, sad, kiddy about my lonely life too, if not for all the times betrayed... I found the sober ones with the good reputations actually cost the most, but "cheap lovers make expensive wives".

Kinda reminds me of a movie called Cherry2000, where either there is a lot of legal paperwork, or there is anatomically correct android... until you find Malenie Griffin in her astoundingly cute phase...

Commonly heard response to date request: "I can't go out with you, you're too nice to me."

Honey, that's a polite tap dance around the words: "I'm not attracted to you that way." I really dislike women who do this. They accept all your niceness on an "as friends" basis, knowing full well you're jonesing for them, but won't give you at least what you've given them. So because I like you, here's a little secret for you: stop being so nice to them! Oh and stop doing them favors, and stop being a doormat. They're only using you because you let them. If you're less available to them with your time, your cash, your car, and your favors, they won't be able to figure it out - and then you'll seem to be like the very "assholes" they tend to fall all over. But your secret will be that you're NOT an asshole, but a very strong MAN, who brooks no shit from no one, and who isn't a doormat. Don't be mean or nasty or anything, be your same nice self, just be "unavailable" for a while. The women will freak out. They won't be able to figure it out! They'll be pounding down your door, until they find another patsy. This is also a good way to weed out the "users". Just try it, see if I'm wrong. I'll bet I'm not. o_O

I'm not sure I follow Gunner. By saying "each aspect manifestation is treated as a unique dynamic" do you mean that the first instance of a man doing something stupid was taken to mean all men will do the same stupid thing?

I wouldn't buy that argument based on the discussion thus far. I think its more likely that a bunch of men did the same stupid thing and in our haste to protect the children (since I believe we're off in the land of divorce law again) didn't think through how we put laws onto the books. They were written for the set of circumstances that were common at the time and sadly don't change as quickly as the times. In fact you admit the laws are good and needed in premise.

I agree we need to update laws to ensure they are gender neutral and reduce manipulation. But, trying to bring things back to rape, forget all the studies...doesn't common sense suggest that a man is more likely to commit what we all seemingly agree is a "real rape"? Doesn't that better explain why the laws were originally written the way they were? Of course, this particular change in BS. When I get drunk, I know damn well I'm doing it. And take suitable precautions to ensure I'm safe(er). The state telling me I don't know what I'm doing is extremely insulting.

Flynne - Yeah, that was another alternative I was considering. I did the doormat thing maybe a dozen years ago. Now I just can't be bothered. Maybe I'll change my mind some day.

Moreta - I think it's a combination of traits common to the political classes. Sloth, arrogance, ignorance. But mostly it's LePetomaine Syndrome: "Gentlemen, we've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs!"

Various interest groups know this, and manipulate the Congresscritters into doing things that benefit their group, and who cares if someone else gets hurt. I've got mine, fuck you.

It's not so much "unintended consequences" as it is "unconcerned with consequences".

brian -

It's not so much "unintended consequences" as it is "unconcerned with consequences".

This is just way too true, much of the time. I see it very frequently when getting into policy debates. You can list potential and in some cases the real consequences of this policy or that and people will inevitably either claim that those consequences were not the result of the policy in question or dismiss it as not being a big problem. It doesn't matter if people get hurt by it, because the policy in question is just too important.

"It doesn't matter if people get hurt by it, because the policy in question is just too important." There is some validity to that argument. No matter what policy is put into effect some people are going to get screwed and some are going to wind up on top. The question is how many of each are there going to be? How likely is this policy going to be abused by how many people? No policy change is ever benign to all involved. This particular policy being explored is stupid I agree.

Vlad -

The problem that I have with it, is that all too often the people making the argument that other considerations don't matter, aren't interested in actually weighing the cost benefit ration. They just want their pet policy and damn the consequences. To them, it doesn't matter who get's hurt, how many get hurt - all that matters is passing their pet policy. The current state of welfare in the U.S. is a great example of this. Hate speech laws are also a good example.

I'm surprised; to me, Aussies have always seemed to be a sensible lot. However, I've encountered this before. At freshman orientation, we were taught precisely that a woman was unable to give consent if intoxicated, period, and that men would be presumed guilty of rape under those circumstances. School had been the scene of a prominent date rape scandal the previous year. Prominent liberal arts colleges don't want publicity for things other than scholarship, so I'm not surprised they were so rough. But in a country where drinking is one of the national pastimes, this seems odd.

And where the national pastime whilst drunk is fucking.

I mean, fucking without drinking is like fishing without drinking.

If you read Tim Blair's log, the antipodal lefties seem similarly freaky to our own; they just pursue their villainy as we sleep.

> Is it possible that I just
> meet an inordinate quantity of
> women with self-esteem problems?

Brian, meet Flynne:

> Honey, that's a polite tap
> dance around the words: "I'm
> not attracted to you that way."

'Zactly. I'd like to think I caught the gist of this one early, and didn't stress about it after 7th grade or so. (Lori was her name.... I thought she shared my dedication to electing George McGovern as our next President.)

> If women stopped going for
> assholes

As noted above, I agree that it's important that women recognize that their selection of partners is important. But...

> "I can't go out with you,
> you're too nice to me."

...Anyone old enough to ask someone out on a date ought to be capable of some linguistic decoding. I'd bet that in most cases, "too nice" translates as "emotionally vague and uninteresting." Women who don't wanna go out with you don't owe you the truth. They don't owe you anything at all.

moreta,
By 'aspect manifestation' I mean:
CAPTA: misandry in the guise of protecting the children. The CAPTA laws allow anyone to 'anonymously accuse you of neglecting/abusing/molesting a child with NO consequences for lying their arse off. It also requires teachers, doctors, law enforcement, etc to report any -in their opinions- indications of the above with NO consequences for embellishing/fabricating/etc their opinions to enhance pursuing their own zealous motives for doing so. read that to mean they can lie the arse off with NO consequences for having done so.
Although US DoH&HS/AFC stats CLEARLY identify women in general and mothers in particular as the primary perpetrator of abuse/neglect and homicide of children, it is the father who is removed from the home (I can cite many examples).
Amy Boyers Law: ditto in the guise of protecting women (but not men) from online stalking, it affords women and only protections from instances of online staking.
IMBRA: ditto, in the guise of protecting foreign born women from Amercian predatory MEN (and only men, never mind that a man flew to Brazil to meet a prospective foreign born wife and was murdered).
VAWA/VAWA II: again, addresses the needs of abused women and utterly ignores male victim domestic violence.
The Lautenberg Amendment: ditto, identifies women and only women as victims, offers no protection for male victims of DV/IPV.
Medical and Psychiatric Professionals: again, federal laws to protect female victims from male molesters, offer no such protections for male victims of professional female molesters (and yes it does happen).
Professional educators and the data tracking laws (the specific legal statute eludes me presently, I have it cached on here somewhere): while the law was indeed needed, here again it offers protections and mandatory procedural policies for investigating and prosecuting male professional offenders (ie there's a reason you find so few male professional educators in American schools up to and through HS).
Corporate EEO policies: again stacked for female victims of sexual harassment with rigid procedures for investigating, prosecuting or terminating male employees accused of harassing a woman with no latitude to hold female managers, administrators and other supervisory 'bosses' accountable for sexual harassment of male employees.
In Nov of 2006 the US Congress shelved, for the 8th time in 10 years, a bill to charter a mens health org to represent male health in federal fiscal decision making (go ahead... someone say it). Women have 4 such organizations. That same session of Congress voted to allocate 80 billion dollars to various short and long term female gender specific health care, and 500 million to male health.
There are 3,400 counties, parishes and precincts in the 50 US States and 112 US Territories, with each and every one of them having federally mandated and tax payer funded resources for victims of DV/IPV including shelters (or in some cases deferral to a local motel with a tax payer funded voucher). I know of 9 facilities staffed and equipped to receive male victims of DV/IPV (4 of which are privately funded).
TRO/TPOs are rubber stamped and handed out to females with no obligation to provide corroborating evidence of need.
And etc (shall I continue? I can).
The fundamental commonality is obvious: programs that benefit women, but not men ergo each being an aspect manifestation of misandry... but try to discuss this 'root cause of the problem' and the response is "we're talking about rape". You want to talk about rape? Fine, but don't delude yourself into thinking that only women are raped, or only women are beaten in the home, or only women are sexually harassed at work, or only women are... etc.
Pick any genre of the so called abuse/predation of women and look at a law passed by Congress to address it and reverse the genders and suddenly it sounds ludicrous... then you're discussing legislated misandry.
The date rape/drunken women rape we're discussing on THIS thread is not the only aspect manifestation of rape, and as long as people insist on keeping each aspect manifestation an isolated compartmentalized problems, the root fundamental problem is misandry will continue to pervade America.
Does that make sense?
Continue to legislate intervention and criminalization of these social problems sure... but shouldn’t these laws apply to BOTH genders?
In this case the issue is sex with a woman who’s been drinking… but the Misandry that motivated this law is not unique to inebriated women getting laid.
Gunner Retired

So much for all the "women are equal" crap. Obviously they are not, and need the full protection of the law in order to be protected from their own incompetence and stupidity.

This just puts one in mind of the joke that "If women didn't have (mommy parts), there would be a bounty on them".

one might look at it this way. rape, heterosexual sex that is, is a penis entering a vagina or some other orafice. vaginas cannot penetrate a man's ass. unless she rapes him with an object. rape is an act of force and penetration. a women doesn't have to be willing, to be penetrated. the man need only have something to penetrate her with. simple biology.

The thinking, behind the new law is this: women who are sober are raped all the time. the justice system is fully aware of this. men have no problem overpowering sober women, otherwise there'd be no rape convictions and in its place - a lot of men with the shit kicked out of them.

drunk, passed-out women are perfect targets if a man wants to penetrate her and it's very easy for the man to say she consented to something she didn't.

Perhaps the warning for men and such laws is this. in order to save yourself from be jailed, don't fuck the drunk chicks.

Law enforcement also knows that it's the men who put the date rape drugs into the girls drinks. It's prevalent everywhere. bars, parties, campuses throughout the States and the cops know that guys spike girls drinks and then lie about the consent.

Alcohol is listed on all college campuses as a date rape drug, and girls have to make sure that they never leave drinks unattended or allow a guy to fetch her a drink etc.

This only adds fuel to making a law stating that ANY incapacitated female cannot give consent. With good enough reason obviously.

There is a flaw in your argument. I have spoken to MANY women who go out to clubs to drink, meet men, and have sex. What's that make the women? Willing victims of rape? The mind boggles.

I think defining rape in this way is not only unfair to men (which it clearly is to anyone with a functioning brain), but trivializes the ACTUAL act of rape, which this isn't.

Kim - what this law also does, by having no penalty for false statement, is allow a woman to lie about her state of intoxication as a method of atoning for morning-after guilt.

Rape shield laws mean that the woman who lies will likely never face cross-examination, giving her pre-trial statement more weight than it might otherwise have.

And when the laws are written in gender-specific language, a man who has his drink drugged has no recourse. An unwanted blow job is just as much rape as penetrative sex.

To paraphrase an ancient saying, two injustices don't create justice.

"Women who don't wanna go out with you don't owe you the truth. They don't owe you anything at all"

Crid when on the rare occasion you give dating advice I always like it. I always remember what you have to say about envy/jealousy.

I go to clubs, i go to college parties, i drink as well i just don't get drunk to the point where i can't fend off a guy and trust me drunk guys who want sex are a lot of times damn hard to fend off and are much likely to refuse to take "no" for an answer. i mean we can be making-out with them, that's one thing, it doesn't mean you want to have sex with them. they can be serious pains in the ass. there's many times i feel that had i'd drunk more and been making-out i would really not have been able to stop them. Unless you are a girl and been in such a situation, you can't know what that's like.

That isn't to say that some girls DON'T drink and then hook up for the night. But what you suggest is that every girl who does drink and hook up that night that she wakes up with remorse the next morning. What do you say about the one's who feel that they were raped? Is there no such thing? That is where your argument is flawed.

"Kim - what this law also does, by having no penalty for false statement, is allow a woman to lie about her state of intoxication as a method of atoning for morning-after guilt."

That will be for a jury to decide though. Everyone is innocent until proved guilty in the States.

"Rape shield laws mean that the woman who lies will likely never face cross-examination, giving her pre-trial statement more weight than it might otherwise have."

there has to be some evidence. to prove him guilty. there are many more girls who've been raped that go unreported due to fear of retailiation, especially on campuses.

"And when the laws are written in gender-specific language, a man who has his drink drugged has no recourse. An unwanted blow job is just as much rape as penetrative sex."

well, men can just as easily call a girl out for rape. there is nothing to say he can't or shouldn't.

Maybe such a law, like i suggested before, will alert men that they shouldn't try to have sex with drunk girls. we've been the brunt of date rape drugs much more than men being drugged by women.

kim, what I'm saying is that a person is responsible in some part for putting themselves in a situation where something bad can happen to them.

If I'm riding my motorcycle without a helmet, and I'm hit and killed by a drunk driver, I'm still at least partly to blame for being helmetless.

If I'm using an ATM in an unfamiliar neighborhood and I get held up, it's m own damn fault for not exercising good judgment.

And those are two situations where I can't even be said to have consented to have something done to me.

What I'm arguing is that if you are going to say that intoxication removes the ability to consent, you should also accept that it removes the ability to form intent.

You don't get to say that something is rape when the intent to take by force something that was not offered willingly is not present.

And that, ultimately, is what this is about. in TFA, a woman became intoxicated, consented to sex, and changed her mind when she sobered up. To my way of thinking, rape requires a clear lack of consent. If you are going to accept the idea that somehow intoxication infantilzes women, then I'm going to have to insist that women no longer be allowed to consume adult beverages.

And I'm quite certain you aren't interested in living in a society where all women are treated like children to protect the idiotic few from their own bad judgement.

there has to be some evidence. to prove him guilty. there are many more girls who've been raped that go unreported due to fear of retailiation, especially on campuses.

This is patently false. A man can be convicted of rape with no evidence beyond the sworn statement of the victim. He is denied his sixth amendment rights to confront his accuser. He is denied the opportunity to present evidence of prior sexual behavior at trial. He is all but denied the ability to defend himself. Unless he has iron-clad evidence (and the Duke case even brings that into question) that he was not physically present at the time the act allegedly took place, he is going to prison.

Maybe such a law, like i suggested before, will alert men that they shouldn't try to have sex with drunk girls.

No, what it does is alert men that they shouldn't try to have sex with women at all. As I said, she can lie about being intoxicated, and after the fact there's no way to prove she was or wasn't.

Either that, or every bar is going to have to have a cop on standby with a breathalyzer so a guy can determine if his would-be lover is legally capable of consent.

That will be for a jury to decide though. Everyone is innocent until proved guilty in the States.

Really? So the general concensus about the Duke LaCrosse players was that they were innocent until proven guilty? That must be why the rest of the season was cancelled, their coach resigned, the 3 players in question were kicked out of school, etc, all before they even had a trial. Nancy Grace sure as hell didn't think they were innocent until proven guilty...

No, I'm sorry, but when a man is accused of rape in this country (and probably every other country), he is assumed to be guilty until proven innocent. Maybe not officially by the government, but he damn sure is by the general population.

well, men can just as easily call a girl out for rape. there is nothing to say he can't or shouldn't.

You really think he'd be believed? I'd love to have some of whatever it is you're smoking.

kim women are rarely convicted of child rape, and I can not even think of one case where a woman has been prosocuted for an adult rape.

And there is no chance in hell of a woman being arrested and charged with rape with the following phrase "I was drunk when it happened 3 weeks ago, I never gave consent, and I was raped"

However with this law that is exactly what will happen to men

"kim, what I'm saying is that a person is responsible in some part for putting themselves in a situation where something bad can happen to them."

so then are you saying all guys are potential rapist? a girl should be able to enjoy herself and flirt without feeling she HAS to give a guy sex or be raped. i simply do not get. maybe it's me.

"If I'm riding my motorcycle without a helmet, and I'm hit and killed by a drunk driver, I'm still at least partly to blame for being helmetless."

well yeah but just like there are rape laws there are dui laws. i mean a gun could go off in ones face if one plays with it. but people on people should be different. unless i am to assume that the guys i know at a party instantly morph into rapists when they are drunk.

"If I'm using an ATM in an unfamiliar neighborhood and I get held up, it's m own damn fault for not exercising good judgment."

most rapes are date rapes. the rapists are familiar to the victim and are not strangers.

"You don't get to say that something is rape when the intent to take by force something that was not offered willingly is not present."

I get to say rape if i am close to unconsious and can't remember if i did or didn't. i would like to think the guy i was with wouldn't take advantage of me if i am like that.

"And that, ultimately, is what this is about. in TFA, a woman became intoxicated, consented to sex, and changed her mind when she sobered up. To my way of thinking, rape requires a clear lack of consent. If you are going to accept the idea that somehow intoxication infantilzes women, then I'm going to have to insist that women no longer be allowed to consume adult beverages."

drugs and alcohol do not "infantize" women they make it harder to give consent, drive, reason and do anything else that requires a sober mind." can a man drive while drunk very well? no. maybe we should make men stop drinking altogether? does alcohol make men less likely to have an accurate grasp of sexual cues? Like "no" does not mean "maybe?" Maybe they shouldn't drink either then, if not.

> you give dating advice
> I always like it.

My first wife used to enjoy it too. In early days, I mean... Later on, not as much.

I go to clubs, i go to college parties, i drink as well i just don't get drunk to the point where i can't fend off a guy and trust me drunk guys who want sex are a lot of times damn hard to fend off and are much likely to refuse to take "no" for an answer. i mean we can be making-out with them, that's one thing, it doesn't mean you want to have sex with them. they can be serious pains in the ass. there's many times i feel that had i'd drunk more and been making-out i would really not have been able to stop them.

You did not clarify, but I'm curious - do you go right back to making out with them right after you fend them off? Because, if you do, that sends them a very different message than I think you intend. If you don't extract yourself from the situation after fending him off, and you go right back to making out, that sends him the message that you're interested, but you're putting up token resistance so you don't look/feel slutty, in which case he is going to continue to try even harder to get by your "token" resistance. Now, it may not be true for you that you're worried about looking/feeling slutty - but that doesn't matter. The majority of women are, and guys know that, and he's going to act accordingly.

Way to miss the point, Kim. And statistically, most date rapes are actually criminalization of morning regret, but I'm not going to have that argument tonight. But the racant rate is pretty high once the woman realizes that her little story is going to send a man to a maximum-security prison for 15 years.

If drugs do not infantilize women, then it stands to reason that a woman should be held to account for the decisions she makes when intoxicated.

The point you seem to be making is that an intoxicated person is capable of forming the intent to commit a criminal act (they are sufficiently in control of their faculties, aware of their surroundings, AND aware of the consequences of their actions). However, an intoxicated person is incapable of forming consent (and therefore of insufficient state of mind to engage in any legal arrangement).

I was unaware of this property of alcohol. It impairs judgment equally, but it only impacts one's responsibility as regards consenting to an action, rather than taking an action.

Curious, that.

s/racant/recant

One of these days, I'll learn how to type.

"kim women are rarely convicted of child rape, and I can not even think of one case where a woman has been prosocuted for an adult rape."

well female teachers are being arrested and convicted of sex with minor students and being jailed. and they should. adult rape, im sorry, i just dont get how a man couldn't just push an unwanted mouth off his penis. if she penetrated his bum with objects, she's a rapist. when a guy is totally totally wasted from what i know, it seems hard for him to retain his hardon so to be honest, biologically speaking, i am not clear how female adult rape of male adult who didnt want it, gets determined.

"And there is no chance in hell of a woman being arrested and charged with rape with the following phrase "I was drunk when it happened 3 weeks ago, I never gave consent, and I was raped"

brian:

all i can say to you? live in a girl's skin. i know you can't but because you can't, we have laws.

you totally, in all your posts to me, gloss over any accountability of predatory guys who force themselves on girls sober and non sober. and post as if there is no such thing as rape at all.

i have finals to study for, goodnight.

the point of thi law kim is not to punish predetory men who drug women.

It was written with the intent to deny allowing juries to hear that the man was drunk as well. Sometimes alcohol can cause impotence.

Sometime a man can drink enough to impare his judgement and still get a recation.

This particular law says women are incapable of giving legal consent while drunk, but the drunk man is capable of forming criminal intent even if he was too impared to notice her imparment.

Do you really think that is fare?

It be like if a woman was drunk driving and the cops arrested the drunk guy in the backseat

BTW if you want a depiction of female on male rape watch Thursday
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124901/

"You did not clarify, but I'm curious - do you go right back to making out with them right after you fend them off? Because, if you do, that sends them a very different message than I think you intend. If you don't extract yourself from the situation after fending him off, and you go right back to making out, that sends him the message that you're interested, but you're putting up token resistance so you don't look/feel slutty, in which case he is going to continue to try even harder to get by your "token" resistance. Now, it may not be true for you that you're worried about looking/feeling slutty - but that doesn't matter. The majority of women are, and guys know that, and he's going to act accordingly."

No, i fend them off when they want more than just making-out. i don't go back to making-out afterwards. usually i am too pissed off. i mean, hell it's just making-out, that doesn't automatically mean i want to have sex. what bothers me is that a lot of guys get pissed at ME for not wanting to go further.

there is a lot of pressure to have sex. i don't know any girl, among friends, who hasn't gone through that. sober or drunk makes no difference.

kim:

you totally, in all your posts to me, gloss over any accountability of predatory guys who force themselves on girls sober and non sober. and post as if there is no such thing as rape at all.

I don't gloss over anything. I don't feel the need to state the blindingly obvious. The issue here isn't the existential state of the act of forcible rape.

The issue here is whether or not consent is valid, and when a man can take said consent at face value, and when taking such consent is a criminal act.

To make a wild-ass parallel: You agree to sell me your accordion. Under any reasonable interpretation of the law, the sale is binding once I give you cash and you give me an accordion. The parallel here is that you were intoxicated when you sold me the accordion, and now want it back. You accuse me of stealing the accordion. Your reasoning that it was theft and not a duly executed transaction between consenting adults is that your intoxication rendered you incapable of consenting to the sale. And as a punishment, you want ME put in prison for felony larceny.

What you are asking for is a bridge too far. You are asking a man (who may be intoxicated himself) to determine the state of inebriation of a potential sex partner, and use that determination to gauge the validity of an offer for sex. Do you have a legally prescribed methodology for a man to use to make such a determination?

Or would you prefer that the couple who share a glass of wine with dinner and then have sex that night be considered criminal and victim as opposed to man and wife?

i have finals to study for, goodnight.

That would explain a great many things.

Amy, if I'm ever a defendant court, I want you to be my lawyer.

kim,
From reading your posts here tonight kim, three things are patently obvious:
1) you've not done any committed research into rape and criminal prosecution of rape.
2) you've not spent any time in a criminal court of trial law.
3) your posts are proof existant of the success of dissemination of misinformation versus the verifiable data discussing rape and gender biased sexual muthos in the western world.
Now please... PLEASE... devote yourself to seriously learning what it is you write of here. What the purveyors of misinformation in this topic never counted upon was that oneday you might run into someone who has actually devoted any time to the verfiable data.
Gunner Retired

I'm still wondering how kim thinks its fair for a drunk guy to be criminailly responsible for a drunk gals desicion.

Looks like I missed a fun discussion!

Kim, you keep refering to telling guys off if they assume making out automatically leads to sex. By telling them off, you are saying that you do NOT consent. If they then force you to have sex, yes, I agree--it is rape. If the girl is passed out, yes, I agree--it is rape.

I think what's concerning a lot of the posters is the gray area:

Whappens if you never say "no, back off."? What if you just keep making out and let him go as far as he wants without giving any indication whatsoever that you're uncomfortable. You don't give him any indication that you don't want to have sex. You seem to be enjoying it according to others at the party. Although you are very drunk, you are conscious. You are talking. You are able to walk on your own to his room or yours.

The next morning you wake up with regrets. You have only vague memories of the night before. If you were sober, you never would have slept with this guy. It was a dumb mistake, sure. But is it rape? Should the guy be kicked out of school or thrown in jail? What if he was drunk too?

Our school had a policy whereby, in the above situation, the guy would have been kicked out. According to our freshman orientation skit (peformed by Women's Study majors), he would have been kicked out EVEN IF he had asked her, "Is this OK? Do you want to do this?" And she said, "Yes." The very fact that alcohol was involved makes it rape.

My two cents: that is not fair.

This will just show my age, I guess, but I'm kinda curious what "make out" means these days. My own rules "back in the day" would have said that unless I planned to have sex, I wouldn't be alone in a "sex-friendly" location with a guy I didn't know well enough to have already had a conversation about sex, kissing passionately and hands everywhere. To my mind, that was pretty much consent.

Now if it was a guy I was dating and already had a conversation about what is acceptable, then we had some leeway to push to that edge without expecting things to go beyond (although they always asked...just in case.)

But seriously, even as a chick, what's the point of getting all horned up with some guy you just met without aiming for orgasm? I understand creating anticipation in a dating relationship, but I don't think that's what kim is talking about.

Also, I'm not sure what kim's experience with alcohol is, but her comment about being near unconscious and not remembering whether or not she gave consent should constitute rape is worrisome. The assumption is that not remembering = near unconscious. Anyone with any experience drinking too much, too quickly should know that transfer of short term to long term memory can shut down well before your body -- welcome to blackout. And no one, not even you, know you're there until next day when you hear about the crazy antics you don't remember.

But that aside, brian has this issue nailed. Why is a drunk man capable of forming intent if a drunk woman is incapable of forming consent. Both parties should be cross-examined and both should be able to call witnesses to clarify their state of intoxication, in addition to offering any hard evidence. Otherwise its he said/she said which should always create a reasonable doubt.

Kim -

You really are rather ignorant about a lot of things.

one might look at it this way. rape, heterosexual sex that is, is a penis entering a vagina or some other orafice. vaginas cannot penetrate a man's ass. unless she rapes him with an object. rape is an act of force and penetration. a women doesn't have to be willing, to be penetrated. the man need only have something to penetrate her with. simple biology.

One might look at it this way if they were an ignorant little girl. It is however wrong.

It is just as easy (though not as common) for a women to drug a man or take advantage of his being exceptionally drunk. It is even possible for a women to have sex with a man who is passed out. Manipulating muscles under the testicles and the tip of the penis will give any man who doesn't have erectile dysfunction an erection. This has nothing to do with a guy being horny as it were, it is an entirely involuntary response to the stimuli. When a guy goes in for a full spec VD test, the doctor or tech will do exactly that to take a urethral swab.

when a guy is totally totally wasted from what i know, it seems hard for him to retain his hardon

Kim, more ignorance. While a guy who is drunk and trying to fuck might have some trouble keeping it up, a guy who is having his genitals manipulated properly will stay pretty hard. The downside is that it is unlikely he will actually have an orgasm. This might seem rather benign on it's face, but if he is kept hard long enough without actually cumming, he can get a urinary tract infection or worse.

so to be honest, biologically speaking, i am not clear how female adult rape of male adult who didnt want it, gets determined.

The same way that the rape of a female is determined, his word. Do you really think that there is a substantial difference in what a vagina looks like after rape as apposed to consensual sex? Because it doesn't. And don't try the "if it's violent then it's obvious" because it's not. There are in fact women out there who are into S&M, who might come out of a consensual sexual encounter, looking as bad or worse than even the most violent rape.

So really, the determination of rape is mostly based on the word of the victim. And ironically, it is because of ignorant people such as yourself, that men who are raped have a much harder time even getting it investigated. The common perception is that if a man has an erection it must be consensual. This ignores the fact that the bodies of many women who are raped, goes ahead and lubricates the labia just as though the women wanted to fuck. This is because it is mostly an involuntary response, the same as it is for men.

adult rape, im sorry, i just dont get how a man couldn't just push an unwanted mouth off his penis.

Are you really this stupid or just pretending? Do you not grasp that men can be incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, that same as a women can? Because we can, especially when we are young and inexperienced.

So it seems that what you are saying here, is that it is ok for women to take advantage of drunk or drugged men, while it is rape if a man does that to a drunk women. And apparently it is not reasonable to consider that the man who is trying to have the sex with a seemingly willing partner might be more fucked up than she is - because it just doesn't matter. He should, no matter how fucked up he is, realize that the women is fucked up and no matter how much she yanks at his cock and otherwise teases him, he shouldn't fuck her.

It also seems that you don't care about the many, many women who actually want to get laid. You know, those women who get dressed up all sexy and go out to party, with the goal of finding a big hard cock to play with. And please, don't compound the ignorance of your screeds by claiming that women don't actually do that, or don't do it because they really want to. My partner, the mother of my children, used to do it regularly. So did a lot of the lovers I have had over the years. Face it, a lot of people actually enjoy fucking. Some of us are even keen on fucking complete strangers (though I have been monogamous for years now, I used to have a big stranger fetish - still like to dwell on my memories of such when I masturbate).

So in essence what you are saying, is that the preferences of those who actually want to get drunk and fuck don't matter. It is more important to make sure that women who get drunk and have sex that they regret, can punish the man who fucked them with a rape charge. Keeping in mind that it is already considered rape if a someone has the sex with someone who is passed out or who has been drugged. So this law is only relevant to situations where the women has what the guy is led to believe is consensual sex and then regrets it. Sorry, but that is nothing but a steaming pile of bullshit.

Wow, Gunner Retired. You are one bitter bitter man. I'm guessing she got tired of you hitting her, and left and took the kids, and you're all pissed at losing your little fiefdom. And especially pissed at the laws that helped her escape you.

Yes, moms are more likely to hurt kids, they are more liekly to be with them/raising them. I'd love to see hwat research you have on rape being "mostly recanted morning-after regret" to paraphrase. Yes, sometimes girls who are being hounded and threatened will recant. Sometimes girls will lie and recant. Usually, what happens is the girl never bothers to report it in the first place because she KNOWS what's in store for her. I mean-hello!!-do you KNOW what a rape exam is like?? Very, very few women would put themselves through that litle bit of unpleasantness for kicks. So bring on your research.

Another "female-friendly," feminist-inspired law. Let's see:

Demonizes men? Check.
Infantilizes women? Check.
Unchecked rights for women? Check.
Unlimited responsibilities for men? Check.
Drives the sexes ever further apart? Check.

Ok, then. Good to go!

Farrar - that was me who stated that most "date-rape" is actually morning-after regrets.

And in other news, women can be coerced into making false rape charges. Two female soldiers were pressured into claiming that a Sargent under investigation for rape and sexual harassment had raped them. The prosecutor was under enormous political pressure to secure a conviction to prove that the Army was tough on "sexual harassment".

They later recanted, claiming pressure. They were court-martialed for their efforts.

Farrar,
And now 'educated' = 'bitter'? Your zeal is exceeded only by your ignorance.
And not that it matters to you, but her beating on me for 7 years and change I could handle, it was when she decided that since beating me at home was ok she could also beat me in public that I became worried. When she screwed around it was pretty clear her heart was no longer in the marriage.
It was when she sexually assaulted me that I decided it was time to get out... it was when I sought help getting out then my blind faith in the system was enlightened by the reality that the system was disinterested in helping men victimized by malignant women.
When the court gave her my children even after it was established that had beaten me for 7+ years, screwed around and also had sexually assaulted me... that I kinda decided it was time to do some research and get paradigm smart.
I've been archiving ever since.
But you're not prepared to discuss that females can be perpetrators of DV/IPV, infidelity or sexual assault upon males... are you?
And of course should a guy invest the effort to educate himself in such paradigm then he must be bitter.
Yanno, I dunno which is more pathetic: that you think that way... or that the vast majority of DSS policy makers in America think that way with you.
I guess it just goes to show the old axiom is true: "never underestimate the influence of ignorance in large numbers".
Gunner Retired

GR - here's a much shorter version of that:

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

brian,
I maintain hope that the singular delineating difference between ignorance and stupidity is the ability to educate the merely ignorant.
That Farrar can be educated or not remains to be seen.
G_R

I would accept your definition as canon.

I also agree with your assessment of Farrar.

I suspect a significant number of people believe as they do because they simply have not seen what is. And although I'd like to lay the blame for all of these anti-man policies at the feet of modern feminism (and I often have, perhaps because it seems so intentional), I'm reminded of an axiom:

Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by stupidity.

That the series of affronts we, as men, have faced of late could be merely applied stupidity as opposed to a coordinated effort by a small but excitable interest group hell-bent on vengeance is no comfort, however.

I think you guys are being really mean to her.

It's called equality, Crid.

I'm mean to EVERYONE!

Crid,
Please allow me to assure you: when I'm being mean to somebody, there will be NO doubt in your mind.
I'm oft accused of being an arsehole. Well, if having little patience for a judgmental hypocrite (and even less tolerance for a stupid judgmental hypocrite) qualifies me as an arsehole... then yes... I'm an arsehole.
An arsehole who despises hypocrites.
Add to that I'm not terribly apologetic and even less forgiving. I have no use for hate mongering misandrist Harpies who spew time honored Fiminist Sanctioned (and oft repeated, refer to the ‘Woozle Effect’) venomous rhetoric which has no basis in fact (more so when I can quickly and easily debunk their uneducated tripe and hype in citable studies and data).
In this particular case it seems Farrar took it upon her(or him)self to accuse me of being a wife beater and child molester, which I am neither. Farrar also alleged my ex-wife fled with my children, which also is untrue.
Now I can't speak what you were raised in discussing ethics and morals, but where I come from that's called slander of the worst kind. O spent far too many decades pandering to the cult of victimology out of some societally imposed sense of communal transgression (which also is a falsehood) obligating me to be 'sensitive' to the plight of women throughout history (while not entirely a fabrication, such most certainly is a gross distortion of actual events). May I just say that, at a minimum, I'm no longer interested in playing the part of a socially correct meek and docile male to appease an indignant womans sensibilities.
The thing is Crid, when a peep takes it upon their self righteous self to venture forth into society parroting FMM (under the banner of their [Righteous Cause]), they kinda need to be aware of something: there's a good possibility that eventually they'll run into someone who can - AND WILL - stand up to them and amply illustrate to them the err of their twaddle.
How they receive such...
Well...
Yanno?
G_R

Gunner -- are you by chance in IT now? I've never seen so many acronyms that I don't recognize!! Please don't take that as slander...

moreta,
If you would be so kind as to delineate, specifically, which acronyms you refer to... please?
G_R

Likely just cultural (I'm Canadian, eh) and that I don't live and breath this stuff the way you do...

I looked up and found CAPTA, IMBRA & VAWA.
DoH&HS must be Department of something
AFC: Google hits Asian Football Confederation, American Football Conference and then Ambassadors for Christ -- but I'll take a guess that its something like American Family Coalition?
DV/IPV: DV must be Domestic Violence, but IPV? The acronym dictionary doesn't come up with anything suitable as I doubt you're talking about the polio vaccine or pressurized vessels.
TRO/TPO?
DSS?
EEO?

I appreciate your passion and trust you are doing more than cataloguing -- using your considerable efforts to effect change. The way you speak about this stuff does raise the spectre of obsession. Maybe why you get flamed from time to time...not that you care, just an observation. Flys to honey and all that crap, you know?

I think Kim is a victim's studies - um, i mean women's studies - major (synonymous, really). You know, the manufactured major to make certain people feel intelligent and generally entitled based on possession of the x chromosome.

Excuse me, there is supposed to be the word "extra" in front of "x chromosome."

moreta,
Hwere's ya goes:
CAPTA (aka the Mondale Act) is The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (Public Law 93-247) provides federal funding to States in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities and also provides grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects.
IMBRA, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, is a United States federal statute that requires background checks for those using international marriage agencies. The impetus for its introduction was several high-profile cases (including the Susanna Blackwell case in 1995 and the Anastasia King case in 2000) in which women had been abused and/or murdered by men using these services. IMBRA was upheld by a federal judge in 2007. However, it has been the subject of intense controversy ever since, because of free-speech and identity theft concerns.
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. Since that time--through the Office of Violence Against Women at the U.S. Justice Department, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--VAWA has provided over $4 billion dollars to combat domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault nationwide. The Violence Against Women Act's programs range from policies to encourage the prosecution of abusers, to victim's services to prevention programs. VAWA helped forge new alliances between police officers, courts, and victim advocates.
Note: VAWA offers NO programs providing assistance or intervention resources for male victims of violence.
US DoH&HS/AFC - United States Department of Health and Human Services / Administration for Families and Children (source agency for the annual Child Maltreatment Report).
DV/IPV - Domestic Violence/Intimate Partner Violence.
TRO/TPO - Temporary Restraining Order/Temporary Protective Order (see Colleen Nestler v David Letterman).
DSS - Department of Social Services aka DFCS/DCS. CPS, etc.
EEO - Equal Employment Opportunity aka HRO (Human Resources Office).
Does that about cover it?
Gunner Retired

Something is wrong with this post, I can see the comments but not the post itself.

Nothing wrong with it on my computer/browser. Appearing here:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/05/06/all_drunk_sex_i.html

What browser are you on? What OS? Thanks. -Amy

You know what I say, alcohol doesn't make you do things you don't want to do, it makes you do things you want to do.

Re "What browser are you on? What OS? Thanks. -Amy" that was me --- I was actually trying to post about the Solnit critique, it told me I was spamming, I tried to go back and somehow ended up accidentally posting that to the wrong thread.

If you get nicked for spam, please, please, always let me know. If I don't rescue your post, the software could ban you forever, and getting you unbanned would be complicated! I'll go look for your comment now...oh, wait...I think I found it by accident in my spam folder when looking for Donna's captured comments, rescued it, and deleted the duplicate...which is probably the only reason you can post now.

I am involvled and fall in love with a 25 years girl younger than me, but i am confused with her busy at all time for me.Ive already bough her a nice renown handbeg as a gift.

Why she doesnt want to accept my offer to dating her on weekend and always tell me she is busy helping her parent.

Ive known her for 1 year 6 months already.Ive just went 4 times had meal with her.What a disspointed time for me.(i am Malaysian and she is also stay here)

excellent post!! would any of your readers be interested in, a professional, quality, DIVERS TORCH ?

Hi guys, all woman's situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but never see nor feel those of the future

This article was well done. I have been looking for just this type of site.Thank you for this information.

Awesome Post, thanks for this fine Post. I will come back soon ! Great information about guitar playing: learn and master guitar

Incredibly useful info here. BTW, I believe I read a really similar article on one more blog today, actually i'm pretty sure. I 'll check it out and let you know, maybe they copied your content, who knows.

Sick post! I totally enjoyed reading it. I will definitely come back to this site.

Should you want aid with our auto poster please let us know. We have the top craigslist posting computer software on the net! We intend to keep it that way.

If you haven’t before now seen or heard of it, I’ll try to give you a general viewpoint of what it is all in relation to.

My favorite Kenny Powers quote: "Sure, I’ve been called a xenophobe, but the truth is, I’m not. I honestly just feel that America is the best country and the other countries aren’t as good. That used to be called patriotism."

6-pack this blog have a number of years so that you can insert? I've been seeing the receiving slower and slower every single day :(

I agree with the last poster on this, great blog though!

Jag älskar när människor träffas och dela åsikter, bra blogg, fortsätt med det.

Was looking for info on that. I wrote it off as just another cost, but I am going to consider it once again.

Hey! I could have sworn I've been to this website before but after reading through some of the post I realized it's new to me. Nonetheless, I'm definitely glad I found it and I'll be book-marking and checking back frequently!

you go girl

China is protesting because the Dalai Lama is formally meeting President Obama soon. The Chinese don't want any publicity for Tibet. Why not? Because the Tibetan plateau, if you look, controls a great deal of China's water supply. Some large rivers start up there and run from there down into China, irrigating a lot of it. If the Tibetans dammed those, China would have huge problems. President Obama, we might assume, is well aware of this. Soon, he's meeting the Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader. Coincidence, of course :-)

My 76 VW bus would launch over railroad tracks like a rabbit. If the insurance companies could have seen what that bus did.

Your post has made me think about an argument from another perspective. This is quite rare when I change my idea about such issues but it looks that you’ve done it. The day has begin with something new! Thank you!

Many people definitely will usually underestimate the necessity for therapy or counselling and that ends up in situations that may well be more shocking.

People today definitely will generally underestimate the need for therapy or counselling and that ends up in situations that may well be worse yet.

Alex (Said he knows you) told me that you could help with a "permalink" problem I was having with wordpress. Can you take a look for me?

I simply can't watch for just dance 3 to emerge here in The low countries, my children will certainly enjoy it plus it truly is a great exercise for them