This.

I experienced the difference first-hand. I moved from Califormia, where the drinking age was 21 to Texas, where the drinking age was 18 when I was 16.

In Caliifornia, kegger parties with $2 admission was the norm. They were house parties. Some were quite elaborate with large crowds - at least until someone called the police, usually for good reason - booze was unlimited and party-goers took advantage of that fact. I went often. No one was checking IDs at the door.

When I moved to Texas, I didn't hear much about house parties. We went to the regular bars. Even with a baby face and braces, I was always admitted. A couple of bars had doormen who would check ID. Only one seemed to notice that I was underage but he just looked at me quizzically before saying, "Did you know that you're only 16?" as he let me in.

In the bar I was around adults so I seldom drank enough to make a fool out of myself. The bars even had bouncers for the two times I noticed men getting a little out of hand. They probably prevented other incidents by kicking out drunk or rowdy patrons.

My sister is only a year younger than I am but they changed the law between us (I was grandfathered in) and created special driver's licenses with a distinctive sideways picture. She couldn't get into bars like I could. I don't think that they had they party organization for her. It probably takes a couple of years.

I believe college admins do not want to "change" this. It would be simple enough to do at orientation sessions.

"You are away from home but are considered an adult. Drinking too much puts you at risk of many harmful things. You are responsible for your behavior (minding your drink and your drinking). Your parents are not and neither are we."

Colleges and their alumni taking their Obama concerns to the press and their legislature might take care of the Title IX.

Of course this is not the mindset of liberal or Leftist thinking.

from WSJ today:
"Justice said UNM violated Title IX in part because of a “failure to provide effective interim safety measures.” Interim measures are imposed on an accused student before any official ruling on guilt. They can include provisional suspensions for the accused; no-contact instructions akin to a restraining order; restrictions on when students can use libraries, dining halls and athletic facilities; evictions from dorms; and bans on extracurricular activities.

In other words, students should have their academic careers or economic futures derailed before any adult has examined the evidence, assessed the credibility of the witnesses, or provided a fair and impartial inquiry. False accusations are not unknown, especially among immature or unstable young people.

For the first time, the Justice Department has also explicitly introduced a “responsibility to investigate complaints of sexual harassment to determine whether a hostile environment exists that requires further action,” even if accusers remain anonymous."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/punishment-without-evidence-on-campus-1465253334

I've said it here before: when I was in college, the legal drinking age at the time was 19, and I do not remember seeing very much binge drinking. Yes, people occasionally got carried away at parties and drank until they puked. Generally, they only did it once. There were a few people on campus known to be alcoholics. They were regarded as pathetic and weren't invited to parties.

The school I went to completely rejected the loco parentis doctrine. Parties would be broken up by campus security if they got rowdy; otherwise it was hands off. Most of the parties had a pretty relaxed atmosphere because there was no worry of getting caught. (Some of the drinkers were only 18, but the campus cops would look the other way. They'd also look the other way at pot use as long as it was done discreetly.) The school took the position that if you got too drunk at a party and missed class the next day because you were hung over, that was your problem. They already had your tuition money.

I've talked to some young people here and there about drinking. One thing they tell me is that at parties, when there is alcohol, they have to drink it right then because the risk of getting caught grows the longer the stuff is around. With us, since drinking was legal, we felt no such compulsion. If we didn't drink it today, no worries. It would still be there tomorrow.

The midwest had some odd drinking laws (like being forced to pay for a club membership every 12 months at every bar where you wanted to drink, or allowing 14 year old girls to drink while accompanying an adult man), but one thing I appreciated was the restriction of alcohol sales under 21 years old to 3.2% "near beer".

Because we were ALL buying beer at age 16. God only knows how I would have handled tequila at that age.

Regarding rape generally, this young econoblogger is handsomely annoyed by this case.

"20 minutes of action" is indeed a notably repellent bit of rhetoric.

PS-- I think Amy puts far too much weight on introduction-to-imbibing explanations for alcoholic misbehavior generally. And the last thing I want is government/administrative proctors teaching youngsters the appropriate way to party hearty.

Such individuals, guiding this generation, would no doubt insist on Foghat and Alan Parsons Project records warbling from period stereo equipment in the corner of some darkened basement...

As if that had worked out well for our generation. No.

Pink Floyd. That'll fix them.

Regarding rape generally, this young econoblogger is handsomely annoyed by this case.

"20 minutes of action" is indeed a notably repellent bit of rhetoric.

Crid at June 7, 2016 4:26 PM
_______________________________________

From commentator Pandora, in response to that tweet:

"when I talked with our oldest about it...every time he'd say...but or what if?...I'd repeat no means no. Period."

It just goes to show that you have to assume, again and again, that teenage boys will hear only what they WANT to hear - and will twist anything they don't want to hear. Just as hotheaded little kids will argue that stealing isn't stealing if someone won't give them something - or if something wasn't locked up. No, it's stealing. (Or, with older kids, the argument might be "I HAD to steal from the store; you meanies always tell me to work for money instead of giving me an allowance like other parents!")

In other words, yes, it can be very hard to know when your kid is growing up to be a covert Jekyll-Hyde, but it's still your job to prevent it - and on top of that, even "good kids" can turn bad if you don't re-educate them again and again, just as straight-A students can become very lazy and apathetic if you let them.

I heard about that story on the news yesterday.

Three things flashed across my mind

1. These cases are why I support the death penalty for rapists

2. If that were my son my statement would have been calling for the judge to be sent to prison for such a woefully lenient sentence.

3. The irony of a news talk caster saying it doenst matter if she doesnt remembers anything as an assault is an assault, when that same news caster defended circumcision a few days earlier by saying the baby doesnt remember anything.

Anybody seen any feminist outrage at this teacher getting probation for raping a student?

Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Is thing on?

Yes, well, it isn't just feminists who often fail to get mad at female rapists of boys - plenty of men who read the stories often fail to get really mad as well. (Especially if the boy victim is 15 or older.) Even the fathers of the victims might not advocate for throwing the book at the women - unless the women are pregnant. It's also almost certain that teen boys who hear the stories mostly don't see the problem - unless the rapist is unattractive.

Of course, how the victim feels in the long run is a very different matter.

In the meantime:

As I said, it's obviously often very difficult to spot a growing cold-blooded psychopath in the making, since they're often smart enough to hide their anti-social tendencies when adults are watching. Even so, adults everywhere have to seek out and reform such children, as early as possible, for everyone's sake.

Plus, unfortunately, many a normal teen boy doesn't understand that a woman's body belongs to her and not to him - or to the public, for that matter - and boys often don't take seriously the idea that unwanted sex exists or that it's really emotionally harmful any more than an unwanted handshake is (unlike would-be thieves, who know but don't CARE what they're doing). So, adults have to teach that lesson, over and over. As in:

1. No, you can't force a girl into sex just because she wasn't a virgin when you met. It's still illegal, believe it or not.

2. No, you can't force her just because you two have been dating for two months and you're sick of her "pretending" she's not ready.

3. No, you can't force her because you've paid for three restaurant meals in a row and you're angry about it.

4. No, you can't force her just because you two had consensual sex yesterday.

5. No, you can't assume that an unconscious or near-unconscious woman got that way in the hope someone will have sex with her. (Not that that doesn't happen, but still...)

6. Yes, unwanted sex exists, just as you wouldn't want a man to attack you and ignore your screams of "no."

Which, naturally, leads to a boy's angry question: "Well, what legal rights DO boys have?"

I can think of three, at least.

1. Every boy and man has the right not to date a girl or a woman more than once - or even once - if she doesn't meet his "needs." What is not civilized is letting people, in general, know what his "needs" are, since chances are many women AND men will think he's a jerk for having them. In other words, if you're a man and your rule is that you don't date anyone who doesn't look like a fashion model or anyone who won't sleep with you after the first date - hell, BEFORE the first date - that is your right, but keep it to yourself. After all, if all men had those standards, women would figure out pretty quickly what was going on without being told. How they might react is another matter.

2. A man has the right to expect to take turns paying for dates and to refuse to date women who won't do this. Since many women are not used to this idea for one reason or another, it's often best to go on a modest date first and then go on FREE dates until she either offers to pay the next dinner date or asks what's going on. If she's been on two or three free dates with you, chances are she won't dump you when you explain.

3. It IS legal to sleep with consenting strangers. Provided, that is, it does not happen outdoors, they are not being paid for it and are not underage. No, it is not "too much wooorrrkkk" to find out that last information. Parents of teens and preteens are never going to let that law change, so accept it. Any adult can lie and claim "he/she lied about his/her age" when the kid didn't actually give an age.

Not to mention that sleeping with strangers doesn't just carry the risk of your getting infected or arrested, of course. You can also get robbed or killed. Yet, many people seem desperate enough to do it anyway.

Oh yes - here's another one - no, you can't assume that it won't be statutory rape if you know she's just a few months younger than you BUT you don't know just what the laws are in your state. So girls your age and older won't give you the time of day? Too bad. There are sound reasons those laws exist.

@Lenona: "many a normal teen boy doesn't understand that a woman's body belongs to her and not to him - or to the public, for that matter - and boys often don't take seriously the idea that unwanted sex exists or that it's really emotionally harmful any more than an unwanted handshake is'

WTF?! Put your ridiculous assertion back into the orifice from which it was plucked.

How 'bout we teach young girls not to be disgusting, drunken sluts, and not to blame their own debauchery on the nearest male?

Then how do you account for the fact that plenty of boys and men treat it as a joke when women rape teen boys? Maybe because the majority of males consider such victims "lucky"?

To put it another way, many a heterosexual teen boy (as opposed to men over a certain age) can only understand the idea of unwanted sex as horrible when someone asks him "how would you feel if a man you trusted attacked you and ignored you when you screamed no?"

I only said "many," BTW. Not all - or even 80%, necessarily.

Back to the Stanford case. Whether or not one agrees that white privilege can exist outside of what the laws of a country say, I thought this was pretty interesting (the comment is about 2/3 down the page at the moment - check out the poignant letter at the top aimed at Turner's father, too):

http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/06/06/to-brock-turners-father-from-another-father/#comments

KLM
JUNE 7, 2016 AT 3:52 AM

"White privilege refers to the fathers request and expectation of leniency, not the son’s criminal behaviour. He would have expected such regardless of the charge his son was in court for. Drunk driving (even if he killed someone) , drug charges, whatever. Such minor mistakes are just part of the college experience, mistakes will be made, but they shouldn’t result in lifelong consequences.

"Now, imagine any but the wealthiest and most famous of black parents trying that for their kid."

And:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/08/in-brock-turners-hometown-were-raising-kids-who-are-never-told-no/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na

By Kate Geiselman

Opening lines:

"In Brock Turner’s home town, we’re raising kids who are never told ‘no’: I live in Oakwood, Ohio, the home of the Stanford sex offender. Communities like this one have a dark side."

Top comment:

grkatz
8:33 AM EDT
When a guy who is caught in the act of felony sexual assault of an unconscious woman by 2 witnesses and convicted only gets a 6 months sentence, how can any woman raped by a white, privileged male (as opposed to a black or Hispanic man) hope for justice?...

(snip)

LuciFera
1:18 PM EDT
According to the testimony at the trial, this guy was kissing random girls who kept pushing him away. He wasn't even that drunk. It doesn't surprise me at all that he kept it up until he found someone, anyone, who was defenseless.

And:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/11/3610327/college-men-forcible-sex-study/

BY TARA CULP-RESSLER
JAN 11, 2015 10:41 AM

First paragraphs:

Nearly one in three college men admit they might rape a woman if they knew no one would find out and they wouldn’t face any consequences, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of North Dakota.

But, when the researchers actually used the word “rape” in their question, those numbers dropped much lower — suggesting that many college men don’t associate the act of forcing a woman to have sex with them with the crime of committing rape...

Edwards’ team also tried to gauge the college men’s approach to the opposite gender. They found that the men who were comfortable admitting their “intentions to rape” displayed a wide range of outwardly hostile attitudes toward women. The men who rejected the “rape” language, but said they would still use force against a woman, didn’t display that level of outward hostility. But they were still linked with what the researchers defined as “callous sexual attitudes”: a set of cultural stereotypes about women as objects and men as aggressors that feeds into hyper-masculinity...

(end of excerpts)

Which would suggest that we can't assume that only a tiny minority of men would commit rape at least once in their lives. (As opposed to the argument that when it comes to SERIAL rapists, only a very small fraction of men fit that description.) Or that only women who drink are at risk, since these men think probably that women won't think of force as rape either. All the more reason for adults to talk to average boys over and over until they get it - and to watch for signs of psychopathic personalities in the other boys as well.

Oh yes - speaking of how some things should be easy to understand, for educated(?) men, but often aren't:

From Democratic Tennessee state senator Doug Henry in 2008, on the floor of the Senate chamber (he was in his early 80s at the time and is still living today):

"Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, 'Let’s don’t go forward with this act.' "

So, I'D love to ask him: If his daughter (he had four of them) got married and then divorced and then got attacked by her long-time neighbor who came over to borrow something, THAT'S not rape, since she wasn't a virgin and she knew him well?

(Of course, it's possible that by "chaste woman" he actually meant "someone who never has sex outside of marriage" - but what's really the difference. Even if his daughter DID have premarital sex, I can only hope he wouldn't feel that way.)

The men who rejected the “rape” language, but said they would still use force against a woman, didn’t display that level of outward hostility.

Show me the questions asked. I want to see the literal verbiage.

Otherwise I'll just assume that its another 1 in 4 study that the author will one day admit they faked all the data and ignored what the survey subjects actually said

Plus, unfortunately, many a normal teen boy doesn't understand that a woman's body belongs to her and not to him - or to the public, for that matter -

Right, hows about you let girls know they dont get to decide whos eyes absorb the photons bouncing off their tits?

and boys often don't take seriously the idea that unwanted sex exists or that it's really emotionally harmful any more than an unwanted handshake is

Its kinda hard to take that seriously when hormones are raging. It doesnt help that the definition of rape has expanded to yes means no, nor the fact that boys are being brought up to believe women are just as horny as they are and are capable of saying no if they want to

Yes, unwanted sex exists, just as you wouldn't want a man to attack you and ignore your screams of "no."

Given women commit nearly half of all sexual assaults you need to teach women not to rape

What is not civilized is letting people, in general, know what his "needs" are, since chances are many women AND men will think he's a jerk for having them.

Funny isnt it? YOU of all people are advocating guys lying to women to get sex illicitly, ALSO KNOW AS RAPE, because you admit women are too bigoted to give a flying fuck about a mans needs

you can't assume that it won't be statutory rape if you know she's just a few months younger than you BUT you don't know just what the laws are in your state. So girls your age and older won't give you the time of day? Too bad. There are sound reasons those laws exist.

Really? What are these reasons? Especially given how often we hear women mature faster than men.

Show me the questions asked. I want to see the literal verbiage.
_________________________________
It was at the top of the article, if you'd bothered to open it.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/vio.2014.0022
__________________________________
Its kinda hard to take that seriously when hormones are raging.
_________________________________

If you're saying boys can't help themselves under certain circumstances, then they need to be chaperoned. Like small, destructive children. Or (almost) like the "popular" daughter (and would-be bully) of the blogger Leslie Blanchard who was watching closely and nipped her proud daughter's bad seed tendencies in the bud. She was interviewed on NPR. You can read the original story here:

http://www.faithit.com/worst-nightmare-raising-the-bully-leslie-blanchard/

Excerpt:

"(my daughter) learned that, while I may not be overly-interested in what she gets on her Science Fair project, couldn’t care less if she’s Lactose Intolerant or whether her long blonde hair is snarled, she’s going to damn well treat people right."
_____________________________________

boys are being brought up to believe women are just as horny as they are and are capable of saying no if they want to
_____________________________________

TV may teach them that, but parents and teachers often try to teach them that boys and girls are often FAR more different than is convenient for either side to understand easily - and have different "languages," as linguist Deborah Tannen famously pointed out. Bottom line: No, I don't believe that the average parent or sex-ed teacher says to boys "don't worry, if she doesn't want to, she'll say no." Chances are, the girl just might try to push him away or find an excuse to leave because she thinks it would be rude to just say "no" - so he won't realize that she IS saying no.
___________________________________

you need to teach women not to rape
__________________________________

And what makes you think sex-ed teachers never do that?
_________________________________

Funny isnt it? YOU of all people are advocating guys lying to women to get sex illicitly, ALSO KNOW AS RAPE, because you admit women are too bigoted to give a flying fuck about a mans needs
_____________________________________

I did not suggest lying; I merely suggested that men keep QUIET about their baser "needs." No one ever died or even got injured from a lack of sex - first date or not. As I said, if all men silently voted with their feet, women would figure it out anyway.
_______________________________________

Really? What are these reasons?
__________________________________

Don't play dumb. You know perfectly well that the laws are not about minors "want," they're about what PARENTS of teens and preteens want. Call it a hunch, but I'd say fathers of girls don't campaign for the laws to be loosened.