Sunday, January 13, 2013

Consensual drinking

Some folks (rather rightfully) object to alarmism about false rape claims. While they almost assuredly happen, all facts seem to suggest that they are relatively rare.

The linked article however goes into detail about how a particular scenario might play out:
There is a man who really likes raping women. It gets him off, the power and control he has, as well as the fear in her eyes as she realizes yes, this is really going to happen. He enjoys doing this as often as he can. But he doesn’t want to go to jail for it, nor does he want people to ostracize him socially if they discover he’s a rapist. (If nothing else, that makes it harder to find new victims!) So he attacks drunk women. He may even ply them with alcohol to get them drunker. He does this for two reasons: 1) They are easier to overpower and 2) No one believes them because they were drinking. After the rape, if the victim says she was raped, all you have to do is refer to the Legend of the Accidental Rapist, and everyone will rally to support you while dismissing the victim for being a sloppy drunk and a hysterical bitch who is too hopped up on feminist horseshit to think properly. Even better, most victims know that’s how it will go down, so they probably won’t say anything at all, leaving you to keep raping without much interference.
It makes sense that a sociopaths would try to create situations that lead to creating victims that cannot get them into any trouble after the fact.

What veil are these evil people trying behind?

They're hiding behind a culture that defines a young, carefree adult experience as one filled with copious amounts of:
  1. Drinking
  2. Meeting new people
  3. Regrettable sex
  4. Fighting
If #3 didn't exist, "beer goggles" wouldn't be a term.

And if you're male, regrettable sex is almost entirely your fault. If you take somebody home at closing time that you wouldn't have sober, well that is your decision making failure.

Also, if you get into a drunken brawl, remember that filing assault charges is for wimps. But that's another story.

In any case, men are realizing that the line between "regrettable" and "criminal" is defined by the woman, and when one is drunk one's ability to judge capacity to consent is severely restricted.

Whatever government or educational organizations do to make this known can be called a good thing. The simplest way to not get in trouble is to stop getting drunk and hooking up. The law is not going to arrive at the truth of many sex crimes (Example: Central Park five) so best not find yourself anywhere near a bad situation.

If you're a young, intoxicated male, you're a part of a demographic that isn't behaving very well generally, and you are not going to be believed if it's your word against someone else's. It could be sex, or it could be a stolen car, broken window, whatever. Your day in court will be tough.

So what could possibly be questionable about these articles about drunken rape?

The word "ply"
So he attacks drunk women. He may even ply them with alcohol to get them drunker. He does this for two reasons...

and then again later.
 Rape is a deliberate, malicious act disguised as an “accident”, because that’s the disguise that works to let the rapist off the hook. So if you’re not plying women with alcohol in hopes they’ll get so drunk that you can force them to have sex they don’t want, don’t worry about it. I mean, don’t fuck someone that you worry is too drunk to consent, but then again, who does that anyway? Most non-sadistic (as in real sadism, not the consensual BDSM kind, so hold your horses people) people’s first reaction when a partner seems not fully on board with a sex act is to be concerned, not to forge ahead. Just for decent human reasons, that should be your sexual strategy, not because you’re trying to avoid a prison cell.
Yes, drunk people, stop raping! Also stop driving, assaulting, and thieving.

And from Stephanie's original post:

For about a decade after I was sexually assaulted, I didn’t let one person who wasn’t a professional bartender–on duty–mix me a drink. The last person who had was the man who assaulted me. His drinks left me far more drunk than I wanted to be. They left me unable to advocate for myself.
Now, in many cases they really couldn't legally consent to drinking in the first place because they were underage when the crimes took place.

That they were drinking is irrelevant - the earth should be a place where both genders can get ridiculously drunk or consume illegal drugs without being abused by another person. It could be rape, assault, or simply theft. It's wrong.

But what are all the steps of this story?
  1. Male offers female alcohol. Males generally purchasing excess amounts of alcohol can be viewed as suspect
  2. Female does not really consent to being wasted, but is manipulated into drinking (peer pressure, etc)
  3. Drinking continues
  4. Sex happens. Female is most assuredly more drunk than the male and incapable of consent, it was planned to happen this way
  5. The next day the man has extracted himself from the situation entirely, knowing that its a cut and dry case of her word versus mine, with no credible witnesses around to damage his reputation
This picture fits into the picture that rapists are power hungry sadists. And it may align with a lot of reported rape.

But does it really line up with the idea that rape is widespread and underreported? Does it fit into the picture where people at skeptics conferences have to be on guard?

Either the world has a lot more crazy male sadists than we think [and they get away with it completely], or there are some males that fail to understand that they did not establish the consent they needed. The latter option would be an admission that rape can happen without the male realizing the indicators that what he is doing is criminal - or at least not realizing it in time to avoid crimes.

This does not forgive crimes. If you had gotten drunk and taken something from a store without realizing you did not pay, it's still theft.

Another thing to think about -

Let's say a male and a female both drink amazing amounts of alcohol.

They close the bar together, and the woman gets into his vehicle under her own power (i.e. she was still walking). The female, being drunk, believes her partner is capable of driving.

The man drives the vehicle off the nearest bridge and they both die.

Are they both responsible for what happened?

Is the male more at fault for being the driver?

Is the male more at fault because he bought her an extra shot she did not order?

Do the answers to these questions really matter?

No - what matters is the overall lesson. Alcohol makes things complicated.

  1. Can be a threat to the user himself/herself
  2. Can be a trigger for people who have abused alcohol in the past
  3. Seriously clouds judgment
  4. Can be consumed against someone's consent, which was clouded by alcohol
  5. Is on the whole unhealthy and responsible for many hospitalizations
  6. Is a tool often used by people trying to cheat or rape you
Why would you allow this in any place to be designated a 'safe space'? Or one inclusive of alcoholics and minors?

Why are we talking about feminism, elevators, and sexist comments on Twitter?

We need to bring back the WTCU.

Problem solved?

No comments:

Post a Comment