A woman has a man prosecuted because she was drunk and regrets the sex. The guy in return gets her prosecuted, because he was also tipsy. Equal treatment under the law. All it will take is the first guy with enough money to hire a good lawyer, and this nonsense will end.

Actually, I have the sense of the pendulum swinging back. Feminism has become so outrageous that the general public is finally beginning to realize how idiotic feminist positions have become. FWIW, it's much the same for helicopter parenting. The pendulum has swung too far, people are slowly waking up.

Unfortunately, it took us a generation or two to get to this point, so it will take a generation or two to fix. At which time the pendulum will undoubtedly swing in some new direction, until it reaches the crazy-point all over again.

Along the lines of criticisms of stupidity, some of you may enjoy Fred Reed's suggestion to disenfranchise the idiots of the world. His columns are deliberately outrageous and non-PC, but generally have a hard nugget of truth at their core...

The problem is, only the guy gets the consequences (on campus) for drunk sex. Even if both were drunk.

I hope you're right about people waking up.

And regarding Reed, he's right about this:

People so little engaged as to think Iraq attacked New York –forty-six percent!—vote almost at random, or in the direction in which they are shooed by cunning electoral mechanics and fixers.

Imagine raising such an idea in the year in which we celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, midwife of the presumption of innocence, which for centuries guarded citizens from the whims and prejudices of the mighty state and powerful prosecutors like Ms. Saunders.

The "mighty state and powerful prosecutors" appear convinced that presumption of innocence is a problem to be corrected. Presumption of innocence is an issue only if your accusers are prepared to imagine you might actually be innocent.

A woman has a man prosecuted because she was drunk and regrets the sex. The guy in return gets her prosecuted, because he was also tipsy. Equal treatment under the law.

Equal treatment under the law is the problem the Alison Saunders of the world are trying to stamp out.

"The problem is, only the guy gets the consequences (on campus) for drunk sex."

Yeah, they are always careful to word the proclamations in a sex-neutral way to maintain the illusion of "fairness". But we all know how the actual enforcement will work out.

It's so weird to hear feminism argue in favor of paternalism. Of course, the version of paternalism they are arguing for is the permissive-father variety, but still.

heh, that UofW page actually says this:
"Sober
Consent cannot be given unless both partners are of sober and sound mind. Sex that occurs while a partner is intoxicated or high is not consensual, informed sexual behavior - it is sexual assault."

I wonder what Anheiser-Busch and Moslon-Coors think of that... maybe in a consortium with wine makers they should start lobbying...

Because UofW DOESN'T say "can't be drunk"... they say MUST BE SOBER. Which means NO DRINKING at all.

That's going to hit someone's bottom line.

Meanwhile dudes of the US should certainly push forward the engineering of their dolls, and pr0n... and OPT OUT. give these harridans precisely what they want, which is nothing.

Maybe it will suddenly occur to them that this is a bad thing. Sometimes I wonder who wants to see the world burn more, that IS death cult...
or repressed control freaks:

""The Happiest Days Of Our Lives Pink Floyd-The Wall"

When we grew up and went to school
There were certain teachers who would
Hurt the children any way they could
By pouring their derision
Upon anything we did
And exposing every weakness
However carefully hidden by the kids
But in the town it was well known
When they got home at night, their fat and
Psychopathic wives would thrash them
Within inches of their lives"

This doesn't change much as they reach adulthood.

The ultimate extension of this is that a man seriously risks a charge of rape after any sexual encounter. In fact, he may risk a charge even if he has never met the woman. "Prove that you don't know her."

Behind all this, in addition to the pervasive theme that "everything women do is good, and righteous; everything that men do is bad, and must be eliminated and punished," is this appallingly puritanical notion of men robbing innocent women of their virtue, as in some 18th century novel. While no reasonable person would ever condone actual rape, this concept that two drunk people fumbling into some kind of sex is some horrible defiling of the woman's purity, is archaic--except that it fits certain agendas.

One would think that a reasonable heterosexual woman would not only find all of this ludicrous, but would realize that she is increasingly unlikely to find an appropriate sexual partner, because most men will not risk a possible rape charge, and 15 years in prison, for a sexual encounter. But I continue to believe that the people pushing these laws and rules are those who hate and fear men, and heterosexual sex, at least outside of marriage; or in many cases are trying to create a world where the only safe sex is among lesbians, and men are cowed into fear and submission to the new authoritarianism. I don't know how to change this, except that I might suggest that men start filing rape charges against women. Most men would never do such a thing, but without it, we have a world where sex is fraught with risk for men, and none for women; where any misstep, or later misgivings by the woman, render a man at high risk to a devastating charge of rape.

This is a despicable sentiment (for both Amy and Reed):

> And regarding Reed, he's right
> about this:

>> People so little engaged as to
>> think Iraq attacked New York
>> –forty-six percent!—vote almost
>> at random, or in the direction in
>> which they are shooed by cunning
>> electoral mechanics and fixers.

This is nothing but self-flattery. You're far too eager to make social distance from the unwashed masses, the ones who are "little engaged" and "random" and "shooed by cunning." The fact that these peasants don't care enough to make time for questionnaires, or bother to resist having their postures twisted by pollsters, bothers you not at all. Your condescension, while grotesque and explicit, is toothless: They don't want you to get too close, either.


Listen, just yesterday I joined Moynihan in making fun of New Yorkers for the Charlie Hebdo thing. But it's noteworthy that the citation itself had no number besides "many." This is just comedic indulgence.

You should not, for even a moment, presume that your political beliefs (or your religious ones, for that matter) are better-composed than those of people you've not "engaged" in an eyeball conversation. If you (or I, or any motherfucker) truly had special insights, we'd know.

"People so little engaged as to
>> think Iraq attacked New York
>> –forty-six percent!—vote almost
>> at random, or in the direction in
>> which they are shooed by cunning
>> electoral mechanics and fixers."

So Romney was right?

UW was a very fine little state school back in 1978 when I got my BA.

Events in the 90's fueled the fire, turning it into a PC enclave.
From what I understand, the drama department is now running things.

The link in my name goes to the U of Wyoming website about consensual sex. I have no idea why a college should have such a thing, but it makes sex sound like the most unsexy thing ever. This is actual suggested conversation from the category "Make Consent Fun":

Baby, you want to make a bunk bed: me on top, you on bottom?

May I pleasure you with my tongue?

Would you like to try an Australian kiss? It's like a French kiss, but "Down Under."

I've got the ship. You've got the harbor. Can I dock for the night?

> From what I understand, the drama
> department is now running things.

I can't tell whether she's kidding.

William: "In fact, he may risk a charge even if he has never met the woman."

Yep, just ask the Duke Lacrosse players; especially the one who wasn't at the party at the time the "victim" claimed the assault took place.

Here's what the legal litmus test should be: If you can be convicted of vehicular manslaughter for killing someone after drinking and driving, then you should be responsible for your choice to go drink and then have sex. The law is screwy that a person (man or woman) is still considered to be accountable for their choices if it involves any action after drinking EXCEPT sex, when suddenly men are animals and women are victims.

My daughter and son are being raised to take accountability and not drink to the point they can't make responsible choices!

"The law is screwy that a person (man or woman) is still considered to be accountable for their choices if it involves any action after drinking EXCEPT sex, when suddenly men are animals and women are victims."

That's a good point. If a woman is driving drunk and crashes into another car driven by a man, shouldn't the man be held responsible for being in the woman's path without her affirmative consent?