Invisapeeps 2.0

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Invisapeeps 2.0 -> Chattin' Peeps -> WSJ Editor: Intoxicated Sexual Assault Victims Are Just As Guilty As Their Attackers
Post Info TOPIC: WSJ Editor: Intoxicated Sexual Assault Victims Are Just As Guilty As Their Attackers
Aurora


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date:
WSJ Editor: Intoxicated Sexual Assault Victims Are Just As Guilty As Their Attackers
Permalink  
 

Wall Street Journal editor James Taranto claimed that cases of "'sexual assault' on campus" that involve alcohol are really victimless crimes in which both parties are equally guilty.

In his February 10 WSJ column, Taranto baselessly argued that men are often unfairly accused in sexual assault cases on college campuses, particularly when both men and women involved in the case were drinking (emphasis added):

What is called the problem of "sexual assault" on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike.

[...]

If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser's having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt ... In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that "if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other." In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

While it is true that reckless alcohol consumption can play a role in encouraging damaging behavior, and that male and female college students (particularly underage students) could probably benefit from learning to moderate their drinking for a variety of reasons, Taranto's accusation that women who drink -- and then are forced to have sex against their will -- are not only equally at fault for their assault but are guilty of an equivalent crime takes victim blaming to a new and dangerous low.

Taranto's victim-blaming approach furthers his attempts to disingenuously redefine the problem of sexual assault as a problem of alcohol. The problem of sexual assault on college campuses, as elsewhere, is entirely a problem of sexual assault, in which a victim does not consent to sexual relations with the aggressor. Studies have shown that alcohol consumption doesn't cause sexual assault, nor does it serve as a defense. According to a literature review from the National Institutes of Health:

The fact that alcohol consumption and sexual assault frequently co-occur does not demonstrate that alcohol causes sexual assault.

[...]

[M]en are legally and morally responsible for acts of sexual assault they commit, regardless of whether or not they were intoxicated or felt that the woman had led them on previously. The fact that a woman's alcohol consumption may increase their likelihood of experiencing sexual assault does not make them responsible for the man's behavior, although such information may empower women when used in prevention programs.

Other studies similarly found that some college men who acknowledge committing sexual assault -- which included 25 percent of male students surveyed -- may have used alcohol to "have an excuse for their behavior." Other variables, like peer pressure, "may lead some men both to drink heavily and to commit sexual assault," but the researchers found no evidence to place the blame solely on the presence of alcohol.

Moreover, just because both women and men are drinking in a particular situation does not necessarily place them on equal footing. As Ann Friedman has noted, "The biological reality is that women do not metabolize alcohol the same way as men do, and that means drink for drink women will get drunker faster." The idea that women who get drunk and then are forced into nonconsensual sexual experiences are equally at fault in the situation misses the reality of assault, particularly as it involves physical force of some kind in a majority of cases.

If Taranto is concerned about the treatment of men in such cases, he could have written about male sexual assault victims, who are a smaller but nevertheless important portion of victims. But when men are sexually assaulted the perpetrator is usually also male; in fact, 98 percent of all perpetrators are male. The "double standard" Taranto is worried about, in which men are more often the accused, isn't a double standard at all -- it's just reality.

The insistence that victims are equally responsible for their assault contributes to a dangerous stigmatization which keeps many victims from reporting these crimes -- particularly because victims who do report can become the targets of vicious attacks. Previously, Taranto's victim-blaming has included insisting that efforts to address the growing problem of sexual assault are attacks on men and male sexuality.

But no matter how many times he uses the WSJ to blame victims and push sexist attacks, his concern that women take advantage of using alcohol to falsely accuse men of assault just doesn't match the facts. According to the FBI, people falsely report sexual assault at the same low rate as other comparable crimes: only 3 percent of the time.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/10/wsj-editor-intoxicated-sexual-assault-victims-a/198007

I want off this planet....or I want these type of people sent off with no O2.



__________________
winds55


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 624
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think both extremes - it's not sexual assault if the woman was drinking, and it can't be consensual if the woman was drinking, are wrong, and make it more difficult for the crimes that DO occur to be dealt with, or even reported.

__________________
EmmDee


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree with winds. I very much disagree with saying a person can not consent if intoxicated. I also don't like drawing a line that if both parties are drunk, it is impossible for sexual assault to have happened.

__________________

MGS Arts-Engraved stones and more
Aurora


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date:
Permalink  
 

EmmDee wrote:

I agree with winds. I very much disagree with saying a person can not consent if intoxicated. I also don't like drawing a line that if both parties are drunk, it is impossible for sexual assault to have happened.

 Why, that is a standard legal theory that is used in contract law all the time.  You have to be in sound mind to consent to anything legally.



__________________
EmmDee


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
Date:
Permalink  
 

I guess I don't view sex as a legal thing. I understand why people disagree. I just do not think that being drunk automatically throws out the ability to say yes or no to sex. I think there is a lot of grey area in that. I hold myself to the standard that I will not allow myself to get drunk in situations that I do not feel completely safe in. It is my responsibility to evaluate my surroundings along with those parties around me to decide if I should drink. I think there is a huge difference between someone who preys on people who have had something to drink to the point of manipulating them into drinking more or pushing them into something they would not do and someone who decided to drink and then made a decision they would not have made while sober. I think putting a blanket statement such as a drunk person can not consent to sex and making it automatically sexual assault is too much for my liking.

__________________

MGS Arts-Engraved stones and more
Aurora


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date:
Permalink  
 

EmmDee wrote:

I guess I don't view sex as a legal thing. I understand why people disagree. I just do not think that being drunk automatically throws out the ability to say yes or no to sex. I think there is a lot of grey area in that. I hold myself to the standard that I will not allow myself to get drunk in situations that I do not feel completely safe in. It is my responsibility to evaluate my surroundings along with those parties around me to decide if I should drink. I think there is a huge difference between someone who preys on people who have had something to drink to the point of manipulating them into drinking more or pushing them into something they would not do and someone who decided to drink and then made a decision they would not have made while sober. I think putting a blanket statement such as a drunk person can not consent to sex and making it automatically sexual assault is too much for my liking.

 I might be convince to agree with you, except that the majority of rapes on college campuses are done by a small group of men who rape on average 6 times by the time they are graduated and do target the freshman girls or shy girls who may not have as much experience knowing where their personal limit is.  If this was two kids who both drank, or two people in a long term relationship, I might be able to see your point, but on average that is the case on campus.  At least according to the body of research that has been done in the last 20 years.

Then again, coming from a BDSM view point, I like the idea of actual verbal consent (or written if that floats your boat) before the start of impairment.

ETA:  Sex, with consent is not IMO a legal thing, rape or unconsent-able ANYTHING (sex/assault etc) is. 



-- Edited by Aurora on Wednesday 12th of February 2014 02:03:14 PM

__________________
EmmDee


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree, there are circumstances where I see your side. There are predators out there who seek out those who are impaired. I think those are one kind of circumstance. There are also circumstance where one or both parties are intoxicated and there is not sexual assault. In general, I have a problem with blanket statements and it applies to this situation.

__________________

MGS Arts-Engraved stones and more
Aurora


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date:
Permalink  
 

EmmDee wrote:

I agree, there are circumstances where I see your side. There are predators out there who seek out those who are impaired. I think those are one kind of circumstance. There are also circumstance where one or both parties are intoxicated and there is not sexual assault. In general, I have a problem with blanket statements and it applies to this situation.

 I think that we should make laws for the majority of the cases, and allow for legal written agreements to tweak things.  Like you cannot legallty be assaults but if you agree to box or be involved in sparing in martial arts, you have consented to the attack.



__________________
EmmDee


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
Date:
Permalink  
 

I wish we as a society took more responsibility for ourselves when we drink though. I know a lot of people take my view point and twist it into blaming the victim but I do think we have a responsibility to keep ourselves safe and in safe situations. I just want there to be a difference between being unable to stop an attack and confusing regret with being an attack.

__________________

MGS Arts-Engraved stones and more
Aurora


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date:
Permalink  
 

EmmDee wrote:

I wish we as a society took more responsibility for ourselves when we drink though. I know a lot of people take my view point and twist it into blaming the victim but I do think we have a responsibility to keep ourselves safe and in safe situations. I just want there to be a difference between being unable to stop an attack and confusing regret with being an attack.

 The majority I know do try to keep themselves safe, there are few that don't, just like any other group.  However, often it is the young ones that don't.  They have never been taught how to drive responsibly, just don't drink.  And, the predators count on this.  One of the questions in a psych experiment with college males was "Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?".  So this does indicate that those rapist knew what they were doing and it was not an accidental, oops we both got drunk. 



__________________
EmmDee


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
Date:
Permalink  
 

Unfortunately I think I have seen so many people out there who do drink beyond their ability to make good decisions in unsafe environments. It is a problem on both sides of the coin. I think it is scary for young people who have not been taught the idea of drinking responsibly. I think it is disgusting that either gender thinks it is acceptable to continue with an action if you know the other person is unable to stop you if they wanted to. I think there is a lot of grey area if they are both intoxicated.

__________________

MGS Arts-Engraved stones and more
Desdenova


Motherhood: Sleep is for the weak!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 1207
Date:
Permalink  
 

This was a very interesting read!

I have nothing to add, just wanted to praise you gals. I like the way you think.

__________________
RichardInTN


I believe in I.D.I.C.

Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think, as long as one can be held responsible for drinking and driving... one should also be able to be held responsible for drinking and f'ing.

I don't see how anyone with any logic can see it differently.

*the above assumes that the drinking part was consensual and only drinks that the drinker actually ordered or knowingly/willingly consumed... that does NOT include people that have been drugged against their wishes or were forced fed alcohol. It also does not include anyone passed out and "used as/like a toy, without their knowledge or consent".



__________________
"Yabba Dabba Doo" - Frederick J. Flintstone... So what?
(Judd Nelson as Atty. Robin 'Stormy' Weathers in "From the Hip")
 
My board (everyone welcome): Great Escape
Papa Bear


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 418
Date:
Permalink  
 

Aurora, I read this editorial. In several columns, he has argued that his main problem (which is my problem as well) is the complete lack of due process for any man. Men on campus have fewer rights before boards with respect to continued enrollment at the school than men at large have before courts with respect to freedom in society.

THAT is the problem which this thread conveniently leaves out.

As for alcohol and sex, I agree they should never mix. Where exactly the law comes in can be for others to discuss.

__________________

It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves.
Aurora


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date:
Permalink  
 

Papa Bear wrote:

Aurora, I read this editorial. In several columns, he has argued that his main problem (which is my problem as well) is the complete lack of due process for any man. Men on campus have fewer rights before boards with respect to continued enrollment at the school than men at large have before courts with respect to freedom in society.

THAT is the problem which this thread conveniently leaves out.

As for alcohol and sex, I agree they should never mix. Where exactly the law comes in can be for others to discuss.

 Except if you look at the actual stats on college campuses, that is not true.   Rape victims are encouraged not to report to the legal system and deal with issue in house, if they even report it, which the majority of the cases are not reported.. In public universities, the accused can, chose one of two systems of review within that internal review.  Legally, the majority of cases never get reported much less into the criminal system.   The FBI reported that false claims for rape is about the same percentage as other crimes rates.  I would encourage you to read David Lisak's work on this issue.  He is one of the leading researchers into this issue.  



__________________
Balloon Animal


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 557
Date:
Permalink  
 

There is a happy medium. Sometimes both parties are drunk so you really cannot say it is rape because they both wanted it and were willing at the time and not using best judgement. Then if one party has regret the next day and calls rape that is not cool. Because it really wasn't. Regret sex is not rape.

I do put some responsibility on the women that you know men will take advantage of you if you get super drunk and let them take you off alone. So you have to be smart about it. Don't drink alone. Drink with trustworthy friends. Don't take drinks from strangers. Rules like that women should follow. It is not their fault if someone still takes advantage of them. We still have to take precautions though. We lock our doors at night don't we? Same thing. There is no harm in doing the best we can to not give any criminals an easy opportunity to take advantage of us.

__________________
Balloon Animal


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 557
Date:
Permalink  
 

Also I consent to sex all the time drunk. So does my husband. I like to have sex drunk. Its not rape if I am not like so drunk I still know what I am doing and am consensual and participating in it. Hell most sex in this world happens because of alcohol.

__________________
RichardInTN


I believe in I.D.I.C.

Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
Date:
Permalink  
 

Balloon Animal wrote:

Also I consent to sex all the time drunk. So does my husband. I like to have sex drunk. Its not rape if I am not like so drunk I still know what I am doing and am consensual and participating in it. Hell most sex in this world happens because of alcohol.

Exactly this. MANY people LOVE "drunk sex". But if some people have their way, it wouldn't be legal.

I say, take responsibility for your choices when you actually make a choice... whether it's a drunk one or a sober one.



__________________
"Yabba Dabba Doo" - Frederick J. Flintstone... So what?
(Judd Nelson as Atty. Robin 'Stormy' Weathers in "From the Hip")
 
My board (everyone welcome): Great Escape
EmmDee


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
Date:
Permalink  
 

I don't read it as people want drunk sex to be illegal. It is more of be sure you KNOW your partner before having drunk sex.

__________________

MGS Arts-Engraved stones and more
RichardInTN


I believe in I.D.I.C.

Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
Date:
Permalink  
 

EmmDee wrote:

I don't read it as people want drunk sex to be illegal. It is more of be sure you KNOW your partner before having drunk sex.

Maybe no one has said it here yet... but I remember many a thread over on Peeps where it was all "If she's had something to drink she CAN'T consent!!!!!!!" from many a member there.

Sorry... I disagree. If she can form the words, or willingly participate in the activity... then it should be legally considered that she is consenting. Even if she's drunk. Drunk drivers don't get a "well... they were drunk, they didn't know what they were doing". Drunk vandals don't get a "well, they were drunk, they didn't know what they were doing", et cetera. SEX is the ONLY exception for some weird reason. and ONLY if the drunk person is female. That's not a position I can support.



__________________
"Yabba Dabba Doo" - Frederick J. Flintstone... So what?
(Judd Nelson as Atty. Robin 'Stormy' Weathers in "From the Hip")
 
My board (everyone welcome): Great Escape
Aurora


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date:
Permalink  
 

RichardInTN wrote:
EmmDee wrote:

I don't read it as people want drunk sex to be illegal. It is more of be sure you KNOW your partner before having drunk sex.

Maybe no one has said it here yet... but I remember many a thread over on Peeps where it was all "If she's had something to drink she CAN'T consent!!!!!!!" from many a member there.

Sorry... I disagree. If she can form the words, or willingly participate in the activity... then it should be legally considered that she is consenting. Even if she's drunk. Drunk drivers don't get a "well... they were drunk, they didn't know what they were doing". Drunk vandals don't get a "well, they were drunk, they didn't know what they were doing", et cetera. SEX is the ONLY exception for some weird reason. and ONLY if the drunk person is female. That's not a position I can support.

 Both of those are untrue.  It is a consistent contract law position.  You cannot use alcohol to mediate your behavior (aka the attacker cannot use the alcohol to wave away blame or a driver driving drunk aka illegal behavior) but you may not sign any contract while intoxicated.  And, I do know of male victims in which the court did find their attacker to be at fault for raping them. 



__________________
RichardInTN


I believe in I.D.I.C.

Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
Date:
Permalink  
 

Aurora wrote:
RichardInTN wrote:
EmmDee wrote:

I don't read it as people want drunk sex to be illegal. It is more of be sure you KNOW your partner before having drunk sex.

Maybe no one has said it here yet... but I remember many a thread over on Peeps where it was all "If she's had something to drink she CAN'T consent!!!!!!!" from many a member there.

Sorry... I disagree. If she can form the words, or willingly participate in the activity... then it should be legally considered that she is consenting. Even if she's drunk. Drunk drivers don't get a "well... they were drunk, they didn't know what they were doing". Drunk vandals don't get a "well, they were drunk, they didn't know what they were doing", et cetera. SEX is the ONLY exception for some weird reason. and ONLY if the drunk person is female. That's not a position I can support.

 Both of those are untrue.  It is a consistent contract law position.  You cannot use alcohol to mediate your behavior (aka the attacker cannot use the alcohol to wave away blame or a driver driving drunk aka illegal behavior) but you may not sign any contract while intoxicated.  And, I do know of male victims in which the court did find their attacker to be at fault for raping them. 

I stand corrected. It's in Contracts as well. 

As to the "It's only females" that was pertaining to the BS attitude I was mentioning over on Peeps. I know there have been cases where drunk males were released from responsibility too.

 

Forgive me, I'm tired. I wasn't expecting to pull the Audit shift last night. ;)



__________________
"Yabba Dabba Doo" - Frederick J. Flintstone... So what?
(Judd Nelson as Atty. Robin 'Stormy' Weathers in "From the Hip")
 
My board (everyone welcome): Great Escape
Balloon Animal


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 557
Date:
Permalink  
 

EmmDee wrote:

I don't read it as people want drunk sex to be illegal. It is more of be sure you KNOW your partner before having drunk sex.

 First time I messed around with the man that is now my DH, I was a bit tipsy. I did not feel violated or taken advantage of. We had just met and started to get to know each other. Like I had just spoken to him a couple times at that point. 



__________________
EmmDee


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
Date:
Permalink  
 

Balloon Animal wrote:
EmmDee wrote:

I don't read it as people want drunk sex to be illegal. It is more of be sure you KNOW your partner before having drunk sex.

 First time I messed around with the man that is now my DH, I was a bit tipsy. I did not feel violated or taken advantage of. We had just met and started to get to know each other. Like I had just spoken to him a couple times at that point. 

 It's more that if you (general) don't want to risk the idea of your drunk sexual partner accusing you of sexual assault, make sure you know your drunk sexual partner enough to know their intentions.



__________________

MGS Arts-Engraved stones and more
RichardInTN


I believe in I.D.I.C.

Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
Date:
Permalink  
 

Prior to any sexual congress (even between spouses), the participants must appear before a circuit court clerk and get a certified and notarized, signed affidavit of intent, to commit sexual congress with any and all parties that will participate, and the date and time such sexual congress shall take place.

All other sexual activity that is not thusly approved shall from this day forth be deemed illegal and ALL parties that willingly participate in such illegal sexual congress, whether sober or intoxicated, shall be flogged in the town square at noon the following Saturday.

 

 

ETA: I HOPE it never comes to that... but it would seem that some people (no one from here so far that I've seen though) won't be satisfied with anything less.



-- Edited by RichardInTN on Thursday 13th of February 2014 08:47:41 PM

__________________
"Yabba Dabba Doo" - Frederick J. Flintstone... So what?
(Judd Nelson as Atty. Robin 'Stormy' Weathers in "From the Hip")
 
My board (everyone welcome): Great Escape
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Invisapeeps 2.0 -> Chattin' Peeps -> WSJ Editor: Intoxicated Sexual Assault Victims Are Just As Guilty As Their Attackers


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard