I suppose FL's wall-poster means some combination of 'If she's drunk, and you're not, and you use that as an excuse to ignore 'no', you're a fucking idiot and yes, idiot, that counts as rape. And you shouldn't trust a drunken 'yes', because she might not mean it because she's drunk.'
The first part seems kind of obvious, but probably bears repeating in college (consent != more vodka). Not trusting a drunken 'yes' as good evidence of enthusiastic consent doesn't seem like a bad idea to get across, but I agree that the metaphor (a watch? a gift of her body? does it come with free wrapping paper?) could hardly be more outdated.
I dunno, this sounds like "what about the men?" to me. Yes, obviously, any drunk people having sex is probably a bad idea, except in pre-existing relationship situations where there is a somewhat assumed consent, but given the propensity of at least a substantial number of males to attempt and get girls drunk in order to take advantage of them, are the urinal signs really so out of line?
Case in point: have you guys seen the recent spate of Bacardi commercials proclaiming that Bacardi "gets the job done?" It's pretty clear that the "job" referred to in the job of getting women drunk so they'll sleep with you.
On the other hand, this is pretty much a by-product of the conception that males don't mind being sexually harrassed, or taken advantage of, which is provided as a foundation for the sort of clueless-frat-boy attitude of "what? you don't like it when I grab your ass in the bar?"
Obviously, men do mind, but they just don't seem to be willing to say it.
What silvana said; it's hard to fault a campaign that intends to say "hey, guys? getting her drunk doesn't count as consent" given how many frat parties seem to revolve around 'getting the girls drunk so we have a shot'.
And guys would mind being sexually harassed. Most of my guy friends who say they wouldn't mind a wolf whistle now and then never seem to imagine it coming from a 300 pound ugly chick who chases them down the block if they don't respond happily.
(I cross-posted with a bunch of people also making good points.)
Joe's right. While this:
I suspect most sex with at least one drunken partner is also sex with two drunken partners. This makes the application of blame difficult, on pain of violating a glaring double standard.
is formally true, it applies only to the situation where the sex is the result of a drink-fueled decision, whether well or ill-advised, between two actively consenting partners (even if either or both of them would have decided differently sober.)
I think the conduct being discouraged by the sign is sex between a a reasonably alert and functioning man, whether perfectly sober or not, and a woman who is either passed out or on the brink of it, so drunk that she can neither give nor successfully communicate her failure to give consent. This is a pretty gender-asymmetrical situation -- the odds that a woman is going to do much sexual with a passed-out man are (to the best of my knowledge) pretty slim.
Now, the sign still sucks, because (a) it should distinguish between the situations and (b) if you're going to put up a sign addressing the second situation only, it should be tactfully enough worded to make the point that only a complete shithead would even think about having sex with a woman too drunk to communicate consent, so that the sign is not intended to address the vast majority of men who aren't complete shitheads. Still, there's a real asymmetry in the situation that's not entirely reducable to misandry.
Not trusting a drunken 'yes' as good evidence of enthusiastic consent doesn't seem like a bad idea to get across
I agree, but, in college, I don't think I knew anyone who got together for the first time without the aid of alcohol. Maybe the rule should be something like, "Sex shouldn't be the first romantic interaction between two people." I really don't know.
The "gift" crap reminds me of my high school religion class. Lots of bad analogies, like "Your body is a pie and every time you're with someone you give away a slice. If someone gives you a gift of a pie and one of the slices is missing, it's not special anymore because they didn't make it just for you. You don't want to be there on your wedding night holding a pie with missing pieces."
Dubious how? Certainly you don't mean that any woman who drinks has to expect that men will have sex with her (cause she wouldn't have gotten drunk unless she secretly wanted sex); that would be an unfair reading, but I'm not sure what you do mean. (Also not so dubious re: frat parties, punch, and inexperience.)
SCMT: Sure, which is why the sign is bad. There's a difference between two people who are interested in each other who both get a little tipsy and one person who hopes that the alcohol will change her mind.
Oh! And my favorite: "Premarital sex is like a big canyon -- if you fall into it, you will be hurt. Some people will be tempted to get as close to the edge of the canyon as they can to peek in and see what's inside. Some people can get away with that, but others will fall in and be doomed. Don't peek over the edge of the canyon -- instead, go to the top of a high hill and stay up there. As long as you stay on top of the hill, you won't be anywhere close to the canyon and there is no way you can get hurt. And you'll be closer to God." This one even had illustrations.
How about: Not trusting a drunken "yes" unless it is, in fact, enthusiastic? Thinking back to my college days, the unpleasant stories I heard (some of which I'd call rape, some not) were along the lines of extorting consent from a girl who was drunk enough to have trouble enforcing her initial non-consent. Drunk people are stupid and easily confused, and it's not that hard to talk them into doing shit.
I don't have any moral problem at all with two drunken people pouncing on each other with gay abandon -- the moral problem is when a sober, or soberer, person persuades or compels a drunk into doing something the drunk doesn't want to do, and I still have have a problem with it even if the drunk is eventually persuaded to give formal consent.
I'd say it's dubious because these are adult women lifting their own glasses. I agree that taking advantage of a passed out or incoherent woman is rape, but getting drunk to the point of making a bad decision is the fault of the drinker. Stating otherwise is infantilizing women.
I guess my irritation comes from my thought that the really fundamental point here is that women are moral agents and that's why it's so wrong to coerce sex via alcohol. But the way the sign is phrased (as well as the gift bit) actually undermine that point, even with the commendable goal of reducing problematic sex.
I'd say it's dubious because these are adult women lifting their own glasses. I agree that taking advantage of a passed out or incoherent woman is rape, but getting drunk to the point of making a bad decision is the fault of the drinker.
Eh -- Labs works on a campus, which means that at least some of the women involved are just learning how to drink: how much they can drink and stay functional, what the signs are that they need to eat something before they have another drink, etc. Anyone who takes advantage of that ignorance (pressing sweet, heavily spiked punch, on an 18-19 year old, in the hopes that she'll get drunker than she meant to) is an asshole, and if you don't think that there are people who do deliberately try to take advantage of that ignorance, you haven't been to enough frat parties.
I don't think it does deprive women of agency to note that alcohol is used as a way to get around consent, ogged.
I don't think it's promoting an idea of women as virginal little flowers who would do nothing to sully their um, pistils except for the evil bees/men who tempt them with sweet nectar/alcohol to note that men often use alcohol to try to get laid, and hey, frat boy, if you're not reasonably sure the answer would be favorable if she were sober, put it away.
getting drunk to the point of making a bad decision is the fault of the drinker
There's lots of fault to go around. Assuming the drunk person in question knew and understood the alcohol content of what they were drinking and its likely effect on their body, sure. But if a soberer person looks at the situation and says, hey, I'll bet I could talk (him/her) into something (s)he wouldn't do otherwise, that person is still an exploiter, though not a rapist. There are lots of degrees of wrong before one crosses the line into the criminal.
There are lots of degrees of wrong before one crosses the line into the criminal.
This too. It's easy to look at a problematic situation and say "It's not rape," and then dismiss it as not a problem. There's lots of room to be an incredible asshole before you break the law.
Anyone who takes advantage of that ignorance (pressing sweet, heavily spiked punch, on an 18-19 year old, in the hopes that she'll get drunker than she meant to) is an asshole, and if you don't think that there are people who do deliberately try to take advantage of that ignorance, you haven't been to enough frat parties.
Exactly the situation I was thinking of, actually. Punch is sweet and doesn't often taste alcoholic, and when you're 19, you often don't have a very good sense of your own limits, or that if you're matching the cute guy glass for glass, you're probably a lot drunker.
Right, and I don't think we disagree on much of anything here, but what was dubious was the expression "getting a woman drunk." Women get themselves drunk.
28: Now I'm really lost. You were taking issue with the phrase 'getting a woman drunk', because it implied a lack of moral agency; but what is 'getting a woman drunk' supposed to accomplish besides getting around the whole pesky consent issue?
I mean, if your point is just that sometimes women drink in order to feel more relaxed/less inhibited before having sex, fine, but I don't think anyone was conflating that with 'getting women drunk.'
The confusion/disagreement appears to me to be that some people in this thread (not ogged and not apostropher) are using the phrase "getting women drunk" to describe the intentions of some men, while others (ogged and apo) are using it note that describing a woman's actions as "having been gotten drunk" makes them totally passive, and is not apropos in many situations which aren't frat parties.
Yes, obviously, women get themselves drunk, but if you don't think that guys who perceive that they might have a better shot at sex with drunk women try to bring that state about, again, like LB said, you haven't been to enough frat parties.
People providing copious amounts of sweet-tasting alcohol to underage women who may not know their own limits are at least partially complicit in "getting women drunk." Peer pressure isn't irrelevant.
Frankly, a whole pie is too much for one person anyway.
My youth pastor got around the gluttony problem by exlaining to us that our bodies are like a bottle of coke. Having sex is like giving somebody a sip of coke. If you have sex with too many people, all your wife gets is the backwash left at the bottom of the bottle.
The problem is that, just as women are learning to drink in college, men are learning how to read signs from women. Early on, you are always going to overcall or undercall - you are an idiot. If you undercall, you'll never learn. So the bias is towards overcalling. In that case, the important thing seems to me to be sure that the damage from an overcall is minimal.
I don't think anyone was, and I know I wasn't, arguing that no (and I'm not trying to imply it's a small number of us either, it probably isn't all that small) man has ever tried to get a woman drunk so that she would be more likely to have sex with him, or that his doing so was morally unproblematic, or that "women are moral agents" means that nothing someone does with another consenually can ever be wrong. It can, at the very least, be a wrong towards a third party.
That last part is in relation to a flashback I'm having to an argument I had with a friend where he argued that there was nothing at all wrong with him having sex with someone who had (and planned to continue to have) a committed boyfriend because "women are moral agents." That boyfriend was also a soldier in Iraq (which I don't think should have had any added weight in my friend's moral calculus, but I could be wrong, and certainly should have has some weight in his prudential calculus).
I'm so glad my IRL friends don't read my online comments outside of my own blog, because they would not want me discussing this.
The confusion/disagreement appears to me to be that some people in this thread (not ogged and not apostropher) are using the phrase "getting women drunk" to describe the intentions of some men, while others (ogged and apo) are using it note that describing a woman's actions as "having been gotten drunk" makes them totally passive, and is not apropos in many situations which aren't frat parties.
Yeah. Let's move it back to the drunk-driving hypothetical. A (for some reason outside the problem) wishes B harm. They're having dinner together. B says, "I'm only having one drink -- I need to drive home." A pours B a second glass of wine, and B drinks it. A suggests an after-dinner drink, and when B says no, says "It'll be fine, I'll call you a cab, drink as much as you like." After six brandies, A walks B out to the parking lot, watches B get in B's car, screech out of the lot, and drive into a bridge abutment.
Now, while B wasn't compelled to make the bad decisions B made, and is responsible for the bad outcome, there is a sense in which A "got B drunk", and A is a very bad person. Not a criminal, but a bad, bad person.
Yeah, okay, no one held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to drink. So the women get themselves drunk and.... what's supposed to follow from that?
That they can't be taken advantage of because they knowingly had some drinks? That doesn't seem correct. That if they are taken advantage of, it's their own fault? Again, very dangerously close to 'it can't be date rape, because she was drunk and didn't say no/fight back.'
That if a drunk woman throws herself at you, it's fair game, because she got herself drunk, and you don't have to exercise any moral judgment?
I agree that "I was drunk" is a poor excuse for some actions that occur while drunk, and I think that all you're saying is that if a drunk woman chooses to sleep with someone, that's her choice, and we shouldn't belittle her choice by saying 'Oh, women only go after sex when they're drunk and confused.'
But to say that because the woman chose to have a drink she couldn't have been pressured into anything and bears responsibility for ALL consequences seems wrong.
The advice here (poorly given in the poster) is to young men. Given the campus culture and frat parties and how it's been pounded in that 'no' means 'no' (solution, have no chance for a 'no'), it doesn't seem like a bad idea to advocate a mindset that says, hey, the fact that she's drunk isn't an opportunity to score because she can't say 'no'.
What's so wrong with waiting for an enthusiastic 'yes'?
Well, I was in a frat, but then it was a coed fart, so the peer pressure tended to work toward not taking advantage of others.
Me too, kinda. The house had been founded as a PKA house, but got thrown out of the national when they elected a woman president. By the time I lived there it was just called a co-op, but we has a basement full of old pike songbooks, etc.
At MIT, the school made all the frats go alcohol-free shortly after I was there. I think a lot of schools are like that now, meaning that the classic 'frat party' is either at another location or in some sense underground.
The disanalogy to LB's example (in some cases, in the ones where the man's intention was to get the woman drunk it's spot on) is that some people get themselves drunk in order to lower their inhibitions, no non-suicidal people get themselves drunk for the purpose of increasing the chances of a car accident. This goes along with SCMT's point about undercalling versus overcalling (though I don't think I'd have used that terminology).
Arg, silvana. And dating is wrong, too, because there were no trial relationships ever in the past. People only got introduced to the person they were going to marry.
Your body is a bottle, a pie, a flower, and a gift, and it belongs to your daddy, and for god's sake, you have no say in what you do with it. Daddy does, though.
(insert screaming and attempts to pull out hair here).
This area is all so gray. I wish it weren't, but it is. The more I think about it, the more it seems to be a case-by-case, person-by-person issue.
Here are some hypotheticals that I have trouble with:
In situation (a), I'll assume that I'm the person getting drunk. Let's further assume that when I get drunk, I often make really bad judgments and even black out significant parts of the drunken period. I know this about myself. (Note: this doesn't actually happen to me; it's just for the hypothetical.) So, I go out one night, stay out absurdly late, and wake up the next morning with a woman in my bed I don't recognize, who may or may not have been as drunk as I was. Who's to "blame" here? I'd most likely blame myself, for drinking way too much. I'd also probably not be that damaged by the whole thing, since I didn't remember any of it happening (leaving out the possibility of VD and such). One thing I'm sure I wouldn't do is blame whoever the woman was for taking advantage of me. Then again, I am a man, and I'm not discounting the power differences involved in sex, and the propositioning thereof.
In situation (b), a woman, with exactly the same tendencies as me, undergoes a similar experience, with similar results. Can she reasonably claim she was raped, or at least taken advantage of? I suppose she can. Although, it should be noted, she has no idea how drunk the guy in her bed was when the sex decision was made (by whoever made the decision). Let's say she decides she was taken advantage of and accuses the guy in question of rape (I don't know how strong her case would be legally; this is just a hypothetical choice on her part.) I would feel that she is committing a real moral transgression here, especially since the guy may have been just as drunk as she was, and for all she knows, she could have invited him back to her place.
In scenario (c), a loutish man has been trying to get a female acquaintence to sleep with him for the past few months. She's always rebutted his advances. They go out in a group setting, and have many drinks. After about her sixth, she goes home with the guy, who has been buying her drinks and making no secret of his intentions. Where does the "blame" fall here? I think we would all naturally say that it falls upon the guy, but really, the guy wasn't pursuing a secret agenda; he'd been making passes at her for months. Now, she almost certainly wouldn't have gone home with him absent the six drinks, but is it rape? Is it poor judgment? Is it just a dumb, regrettable decision? Is it her "fault"? Again, the circumstances can be tipped one way or another so very, very easily.
Please tell me if I'm setting up strawman arguments here; I think these three scenarios are not entirely uncommon ones.
some people get themselves drunk in order to lower their inhibitions
Sure -- this is a topic simply dripping with grey areas, which is part of the reason (although I can see why it would be annoying) addressing it with exhortations to young men (preferably better worded than FL's sign) rather than with another form of regulation makes sense. In a lot of the situations we're talking about, the only way to tell whether there's any wrongdoing going on is to examine the intentions of the actors, and the actors are obviously the best qualified to know if their intention is to do wrong.
Most women don't get themselves drunk so they have no agency in having sex, either, w/d. I knew a couple girls in college who did ('If I'm drunk it's not a sin!'), but that's really the exception.
Another analogy (goal: to compare sex to as many inappropriate objects as possible). A and B are drinking. They don't know each other too well, but they're quite happy, and A is relaxed and imbibing freely. Suddenly, A announces A's desire to spend a lot of money on B and hands B A's credit cards. B hasn't even refilled A's glass. Should B go on a shopping spree?
Oh God, Silvana, that was horrendous. I couldn't bear to read the whole thing, but this paragraph stuck out:
"The answer to this question will bring us the answer to the propriety of courtship as a model for a daughter's pre-marriage relationship with a prospective suitor. For the crux of the courtship question is not empirical, but principal. I define courtship as the discovery of a life-partner for a daughter under the direct oversight of the father. Any man seeking to beg, borrow or steal a daughter's hand without her father's endorsement is seeking to gain, in unlawful ways, "property" not his own. Daughters are Daddy's girls in the objective sense, and this particular daughter rejoices in that truth. I am owned by my father. If someone is interested in me, he should see him."
This is a grey area, but I don't think you set up any strawmen.
In a) and b), I think the drinkers (Joe and the woman) are both primarily to blame for their own bad results.
In c), I think the guy is an asshole. Probably not rape (certainly nearly impossible to prosecute), but certainly willing to take advantage of someone who has rebuffed him in the past because she's not saying no at the moment.
Now, the line between a, b, and c is very vague, especially when the parties don't know each other; so like LB says in 61, it's really not a bad message to send to guys that they should err on the side of caution when determining whether she's interested, can't be bothered to protest, when she's drunk. There's really no harm in letting her take the initiative.
Because otherwise all the anti-date-rape info (which is what this poster is about, I'm guessing) can be about is telling girls how to avoid it. Don't drink, don't go to the frat, don't hang out with guys, and make sure you don't get drunk because then poor little boy just can't help himself.
Joe, I crossed with you, but I think my last comment addresses your issue. We're not talking about criminal/evidentiary standards for rape, here, we're talking about moral issues.
In (a) and (b), the blackout complicates it -- the subject doesn't know what happened. The other partner (female in (a), male in (b)), if they didn't black out, knows if they raped or otherwise molested an unconscious person, or coerced or aggressively persuaded a drunk into doing something they wouldn't want to do, or conversely, if anything that happened was freely (if impairedly) consented to by all parties. The moral status of the actors is governed by their intent when acting, regardless of how hard that is to know or prove later on.
In the third situation the guy is an asshole, but not a rapist, and the woman used poor judgment (assuming both that she actively consented, and that she wouldn't have if sober. If she didn't actively consent, and he had sex with her anyway, he's a rapist -- if she simply changed her mind, nothing bad happened at all.). Her poor judgment in getting drunk in the company of someone she knew wanted to take advantage of her relieves him of criminal responsibility, but he remains an asshole (to the extent that he knows that she will wake up unhappy about what she has done. If he honestly thinks that her drunken consent is evidence that she's actually changed her mind and wants to have sex with him, he's not even an asshole.) I'm not seeing a huge problem in resolving this one.
What's so wrong with waiting for an enthusiastic 'yes'?
Well, depending on the person, that may be a very long wait. I happen to know a strict Catholic who couldn't give an enthusiastic "yes" for a couple years even after we got married. The "sex is dirty"meme was firmly etched into her mind.
As practical advice, 69 is spot on. (That was actually what I was thinking with Joe's (c) -- they were in a group setting? What the hell were her friends thinking?)
The better advice is: bring a friend who will watch out for you.
Good advice, but as whose-fault-will-it-be prevention it's kind of useless. Your friend might get drunk, too. Or worse, if you went to the party without a friend, you're fair game (because if you were smart, you would have brought a friend).
Tripp, yeah, I know. But in the context of a drunken girl flirting with a guy whose hoping he'll get laid, I think it's good advice to tell him to slow down. If she really wants to jump him, and he stops, she'll let him know, ya know? What's the worst that can happen?
I think "enthusiastic 'yes'" is problematic. In my experience, everything both is and seems more enthusiastic when alcohol is added to it. Also - what Tripp said, a bit. I got into one longish relationship purely as a function of boredom. Alternatively, the situation in which both parties are interested, and neither will move off the mark is the stuff of boilerplate romances. I'm not sure that the early beginnings of relationships are always that enthusiastic. The rule should be no sex until later.
I think you're a decent guy who is looking at a rule that covers a situation you wouldn't be in, and worrying that it might apply to you. Rather than saying "enthusiastic", think of it like this -- don't have sex with someone (to the best of your understanding at the time, recognizing that your understanding might also be impaired) unless you're sure that if if she were standing in her own bedroom, with the option of shutting and locking the door in your face and sleeping alone, that she'd invite you in. Consent achieved through pestering, confusing, embarrassing or frightening a drunk, while it may be sufficient to cover you against legal liability, is not sufficient to make you not an asshole.
There's a real problem in talking about this stuff with decent guys, in that women have more experience with the assholes than decent guys do. Even if only 2% (number invented for convenience) of guys would dream of attempting rape or lesser forms of sexual coercion, those guys seem to do it a lot, so a lot of women run into them. Bad behavior in this context can be a problem for women generally, without in any way being characteristic of men generally.
I think you're a decent guy who is looking at a rule that covers a situation you wouldn't be in, and worrying that it might apply to you.
Which is often a huge problem in discussing issues of consent, one that goes unacknowledged; the nice, decent guys are worried that they might turn out to be date rapists (and the assholes never seem to worry).
Maybe 'enthusiastic' gave the wrong sense to it. How about 'unambiguous yes' instead of 'absence of a clear 'no' '?
The hotel staff inform me that the following conversation was recorded on the security cameras:
BG offered throatily, "I'll ring for some peach schnapps." To which Weiner replied, "With you, darling, that won't be necessary." Indeed, his bunny slippers were looking distinctly less lop-eared.
I think you're a decent guy who is looking at a rule that covers a situation you wouldn't be in, and worrying that it might apply to you
At my age (roughly yours), I no longer need to worry about these things. Nobody can handle the day-after effects of alcohol well enough to get well and truly drunk. But I think people are misdescribing how these sort of things go. An awful lot of mating, both long and short term, is a function of getting one party or the other to stop obsessing about Ms./Mr. Perfect and get on with Ms./Mr. Good Enough.
the nice, decent guys are worried that they might turn out to be date rapists (and the assholes never seem to worry).
Exactly. The point needs to be made that if you're the kind of guy who is happily participating in a discussion like this, and if you're concerned by something you did that you thought at the time wasn't a bad thing to to do, it's almost certainly not what we're talking about.
But I think people are misdescribing how these sort of things go. An awful lot of mating, both long and short term, is a function of getting one party or the other to stop obsessing about Ms./Mr. Perfect and get on with Ms./Mr. Good Enough.
This, I don't follow at all in the context of the discussion.
The point needs to be made that if you're the kind of guy who is happily participating in a discussion like this, and if you're concerned by something you did that you thought at the time wasn't a bad thing to to do, it's almost certainly not what we're talking about.
I'd have gone with, "'If you want it, I have some peach schnapps.' To which Weiner replied, 'Biscuit conditional! With you, darling, that won't be necessary.'..."
And now I'll go back to being disturbed about reading and suggesting a revision on this.
This, I don't follow at all in the context of the discussion.
True story. At one of my frat parties, while playing a drinking game, the young hottie next to me who I've seen before, for maybe a month, but who hasn't ever said much to me says "Lets go upstairs."
To my room. Do we go? She is tipsy, maybe drunk, near as I can tell.
92 -- I think you do. If it had been a tipsy/drunk guy, and he asked the question of a girl he hadn't said much to in the past, it would go entirely unremarked, right?
I would say you wouldn't have been wrong to on those facts. I can see esthetic arguments for not having casual sex with someone who you have reason to suspect might regret it in the morning, but it's not clear whether those apply in this situation.
Doesn't seem to be wrong to go upstairs on these facts. She's tipsy-drunk, not hammered; she seems to be a pretty active agent (i.e., this isn't an unremarked groping).
92: a gentleman would probably say "no darling, you're drunk". A true gentleman would then not go on about the story to his mates incessantly for the next few weeks, but I would say that this would be above and beyond the call of duty.
Perhaps a catchy slogan for the urinals, covering both the sexual and hypothetical watch cases would be
"It is wrong to get by alcohol what you could not obtain simply by begging".
(I remember some dialogue from a Willy Russell play once that went:
You know, the hotel staff mistranscribed the security video tape. The conversation actually went something like this:
"If you want it, I have some some peach schnapps," offered BG throatily.
"Biscuit conditional! And unnecessary, for if you'll have me, my bunny slippers are feeling distinctly less lop-eared," replied Wiener.
"If you don't mind my saying so, that was also a biscuit conditional, Weiner."
"So was that! And if you want a nice guy, I'm trying to be sensitive!"
"If you criticize my conditionals when we're about to make love, I'm tired of this liaison," sobbed BG, and stormed down to the hotel bar to order a shot of schnapps, neat, while Weiner was left alone with his slippers.
This, I don't follow at all in the context of the discussion.
Well, hell. I haven't really been very clear, have I? Sorry about that; I have a head cold, and I keep running out energy to think clearly.
1. I absolutely agree with #79, at a minimum.
2. What I meant is that I re: Mr. Perfect/Mr. Good Enough -
I don't think people go to parties with clearly set predefined intentions about who to hook-up with or not. At best, they have something of a preference list. That list changes as the hour grows longer and the fifth grows smaller. Most vulgarly, for men, it's the case of beer goggles; I assume women have the same thing.
From the other side of the potential seminal transaction, you go in sure that the person you have a crush on would like you if they got to know you better, or got to know the person they were interested in better, or whatever. So you go in believing that your possible person's prior intentions are not set and not the sole measure of the validity of the transaction.
The party acts as a clearinghouse. Two people have been drinking, and they end up together. It strikes me as entirely possible that one person's preference line-up may have changed because of, among other things, alcohol. It's also possible that it changed because he got to know you better, etc. No one sorts that out at the moment of action, though.
In specific, I remember ending up with someone I did not intend to end up with because I felt guilty about prior flirting. I didn't feel comfortable going after someone else in front of her, and I felt a certain obligation to be friendly. That thought process + alcohol meant we ended up hooking up that night. We dated for a few months thereafter.
You want to see bathroom walls covered with "Whiskey Dick?"
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:24 AM
Having sex with a drunk person is illegal?
Uh oh.
How many married couples should be carted off to jail?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:32 AM
I reject the drunk/sober duality; there are many subtle levels.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:35 AM
Point (b) makes no sense. As with the watch, you're giving the gift back once you're done with it.
Except maybe in Kansas.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:38 AM
I suppose FL's wall-poster means some combination of 'If she's drunk, and you're not, and you use that as an excuse to ignore 'no', you're a fucking idiot and yes, idiot, that counts as rape. And you shouldn't trust a drunken 'yes', because she might not mean it because she's drunk.'
The first part seems kind of obvious, but probably bears repeating in college (consent != more vodka). Not trusting a drunken 'yes' as good evidence of enthusiastic consent doesn't seem like a bad idea to get across, but I agree that the metaphor (a watch? a gift of her body? does it come with free wrapping paper?) could hardly be more outdated.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:40 AM
I dunno, this sounds like "what about the men?" to me. Yes, obviously, any drunk people having sex is probably a bad idea, except in pre-existing relationship situations where there is a somewhat assumed consent, but given the propensity of at least a substantial number of males to attempt and get girls drunk in order to take advantage of them, are the urinal signs really so out of line?
Case in point: have you guys seen the recent spate of Bacardi commercials proclaiming that Bacardi "gets the job done?" It's pretty clear that the "job" referred to in the job of getting women drunk so they'll sleep with you.
On the other hand, this is pretty much a by-product of the conception that males don't mind being sexually harrassed, or taken advantage of, which is provided as a foundation for the sort of clueless-frat-boy attitude of "what? you don't like it when I grab your ass in the bar?"
Obviously, men do mind, but they just don't seem to be willing to say it.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:40 AM
Oh, yeah, and I'm totally with Cala on the "gift" thing. Gross.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:41 AM
What silvana said; it's hard to fault a campaign that intends to say "hey, guys? getting her drunk doesn't count as consent" given how many frat parties seem to revolve around 'getting the girls drunk so we have a shot'.
And guys would mind being sexually harassed. Most of my guy friends who say they wouldn't mind a wolf whistle now and then never seem to imagine it coming from a 300 pound ugly chick who chases them down the block if they don't respond happily.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:48 AM
(I cross-posted with a bunch of people also making good points.)
Joe's right. While this:
I suspect most sex with at least one drunken partner is also sex with two drunken partners. This makes the application of blame difficult, on pain of violating a glaring double standard.
is formally true, it applies only to the situation where the sex is the result of a drink-fueled decision, whether well or ill-advised, between two actively consenting partners (even if either or both of them would have decided differently sober.)
I think the conduct being discouraged by the sign is sex between a a reasonably alert and functioning man, whether perfectly sober or not, and a woman who is either passed out or on the brink of it, so drunk that she can neither give nor successfully communicate her failure to give consent. This is a pretty gender-asymmetrical situation -- the odds that a woman is going to do much sexual with a passed-out man are (to the best of my knowledge) pretty slim.
Now, the sign still sucks, because (a) it should distinguish between the situations and (b) if you're going to put up a sign addressing the second situation only, it should be tactfully enough worded to make the point that only a complete shithead would even think about having sex with a woman too drunk to communicate consent, so that the sign is not intended to address the vast majority of men who aren't complete shitheads. Still, there's a real asymmetry in the situation that's not entirely reducable to misandry.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:48 AM
Not trusting a drunken 'yes' as good evidence of enthusiastic consent doesn't seem like a bad idea to get across
I agree, but, in college, I don't think I knew anyone who got together for the first time without the aid of alcohol. Maybe the rule should be something like, "Sex shouldn't be the first romantic interaction between two people." I really don't know.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:50 AM
It should also be noted that "getting a woman drunk" is itself a dubious description.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:51 AM
The "gift" crap reminds me of my high school religion class. Lots of bad analogies, like "Your body is a pie and every time you're with someone you give away a slice. If someone gives you a gift of a pie and one of the slices is missing, it's not special anymore because they didn't make it just for you. You don't want to be there on your wedding night holding a pie with missing pieces."
I only wish I was making that up.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:52 AM
Becks -- I also heard the "stained t-shirt" formulation in my years as a Baptist.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:55 AM
Wow, that's terrible, Becks. It also seems really stupid, since most people are happy to get any pie at all.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:56 AM
Dubious how? Certainly you don't mean that any woman who drinks has to expect that men will have sex with her (cause she wouldn't have gotten drunk unless she secretly wanted sex); that would be an unfair reading, but I'm not sure what you do mean. (Also not so dubious re: frat parties, punch, and inexperience.)
SCMT: Sure, which is why the sign is bad. There's a difference between two people who are interested in each other who both get a little tipsy and one person who hopes that the alcohol will change her mind.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:58 AM
Oh! And my favorite: "Premarital sex is like a big canyon -- if you fall into it, you will be hurt. Some people will be tempted to get as close to the edge of the canyon as they can to peek in and see what's inside. Some people can get away with that, but others will fall in and be doomed. Don't peek over the edge of the canyon -- instead, go to the top of a high hill and stay up there. As long as you stay on top of the hill, you won't be anywhere close to the canyon and there is no way you can get hurt. And you'll be closer to God." This one even had illustrations.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:59 AM
Hmmm, pie. I agree with ogged. Any pie at all is good.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:59 AM
I mean it seems to deprive women of agency.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 10:59 AM
To 10:
How about: Not trusting a drunken "yes" unless it is, in fact, enthusiastic? Thinking back to my college days, the unpleasant stories I heard (some of which I'd call rape, some not) were along the lines of extorting consent from a girl who was drunk enough to have trouble enforcing her initial non-consent. Drunk people are stupid and easily confused, and it's not that hard to talk them into doing shit.
I don't have any moral problem at all with two drunken people pouncing on each other with gay abandon -- the moral problem is when a sober, or soberer, person persuades or compels a drunk into doing something the drunk doesn't want to do, and I still have have a problem with it even if the drunk is eventually persuaded to give formal consent.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:00 AM
Becks went to junior high in Afghanistan.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:00 AM
Dubious how?
I'd say it's dubious because these are adult women lifting their own glasses. I agree that taking advantage of a passed out or incoherent woman is rape, but getting drunk to the point of making a bad decision is the fault of the drinker. Stating otherwise is infantilizing women.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:01 AM
I guess my irritation comes from my thought that the really fundamental point here is that women are moral agents and that's why it's so wrong to coerce sex via alcohol. But the way the sign is phrased (as well as the gift bit) actually undermine that point, even with the commendable goal of reducing problematic sex.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:01 AM
I'd say it's dubious because these are adult women lifting their own glasses. I agree that taking advantage of a passed out or incoherent woman is rape, but getting drunk to the point of making a bad decision is the fault of the drinker.
Eh -- Labs works on a campus, which means that at least some of the women involved are just learning how to drink: how much they can drink and stay functional, what the signs are that they need to eat something before they have another drink, etc. Anyone who takes advantage of that ignorance (pressing sweet, heavily spiked punch, on an 18-19 year old, in the hopes that she'll get drunker than she meant to) is an asshole, and if you don't think that there are people who do deliberately try to take advantage of that ignorance, you haven't been to enough frat parties.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:06 AM
I don't think it does deprive women of agency to note that alcohol is used as a way to get around consent, ogged.
I don't think it's promoting an idea of women as virginal little flowers who would do nothing to sully their um, pistils except for the evil bees/men who tempt them with sweet nectar/alcohol to note that men often use alcohol to try to get laid, and hey, frat boy, if you're not reasonably sure the answer would be favorable if she were sober, put it away.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:06 AM
getting drunk to the point of making a bad decision is the fault of the drinker
There's lots of fault to go around. Assuming the drunk person in question knew and understood the alcohol content of what they were drinking and its likely effect on their body, sure. But if a soberer person looks at the situation and says, hey, I'll bet I could talk (him/her) into something (s)he wouldn't do otherwise, that person is still an exploiter, though not a rapist. There are lots of degrees of wrong before one crosses the line into the criminal.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:06 AM
Frankly, a whole pie is too much for one person anyway.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:08 AM
There are lots of degrees of wrong before one crosses the line into the criminal.
This too. It's easy to look at a problematic situation and say "It's not rape," and then dismiss it as not a problem. There's lots of room to be an incredible asshole before you break the law.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:09 AM
I don't think it does deprive women of agency to note that alcohol is used as a way to get around consent
I didn't say it did.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:12 AM
Anyone who takes advantage of that ignorance (pressing sweet, heavily spiked punch, on an 18-19 year old, in the hopes that she'll get drunker than she meant to) is an asshole, and if you don't think that there are people who do deliberately try to take advantage of that ignorance, you haven't been to enough frat parties.
Exactly the situation I was thinking of, actually. Punch is sweet and doesn't often taste alcoholic, and when you're 19, you often don't have a very good sense of your own limits, or that if you're matching the cute guy glass for glass, you're probably a lot drunker.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:15 AM
Right, and I don't think we disagree on much of anything here, but what was dubious was the expression "getting a woman drunk." Women get themselves drunk.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:19 AM
28: Now I'm really lost. You were taking issue with the phrase 'getting a woman drunk', because it implied a lack of moral agency; but what is 'getting a woman drunk' supposed to accomplish besides getting around the whole pesky consent issue?
I mean, if your point is just that sometimes women drink in order to feel more relaxed/less inhibited before having sex, fine, but I don't think anyone was conflating that with 'getting women drunk.'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:20 AM
I meant what the apostropher says in 30.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:21 AM
Anybody want a drink?
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:24 AM
The confusion/disagreement appears to me to be that some people in this thread (not ogged and not apostropher) are using the phrase "getting women drunk" to describe the intentions of some men, while others (ogged and apo) are using it note that describing a woman's actions as "having been gotten drunk" makes them totally passive, and is not apropos in many situations which aren't frat parties.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:26 AM
Yes, obviously, women get themselves drunk, but if you don't think that guys who perceive that they might have a better shot at sex with drunk women try to bring that state about, again, like LB said, you haven't been to enough frat parties.
People providing copious amounts of sweet-tasting alcohol to underage women who may not know their own limits are at least partially complicit in "getting women drunk." Peer pressure isn't irrelevant.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:27 AM
I don't have any moral problem at all with two drunken people pouncing on each other with gay abandon
I can't believe this was let slide uncommented...
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:30 AM
Well, I was in a frat, but then it was a coed fart, so the peer pressure tended to work toward not taking advantage of others.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:31 AM
"Coed fart". Geez.
Sorry, Ogged.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:32 AM
Ummm
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:32 AM
A coed ogg apostropher, ogg.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:32 AM
I can't believe this was let slide uncommented...
We ish havin' a sherious dishcusshin here, quiet you.
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:32 AM
Frankly, a whole pie is too much for one person anyway.
My youth pastor got around the gluttony problem by exlaining to us that our bodies are like a bottle of coke. Having sex is like giving somebody a sip of coke. If you have sex with too many people, all your wife gets is the backwash left at the bottom of the bottle.
Also not making this up.
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:35 AM
The problem is that, just as women are learning to drink in college, men are learning how to read signs from women. Early on, you are always going to overcall or undercall - you are an idiot. If you undercall, you'll never learn. So the bias is towards overcalling. In that case, the important thing seems to me to be sure that the damage from an overcall is minimal.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:35 AM
I don't think anyone was, and I know I wasn't, arguing that no (and I'm not trying to imply it's a small number of us either, it probably isn't all that small) man has ever tried to get a woman drunk so that she would be more likely to have sex with him, or that his doing so was morally unproblematic, or that "women are moral agents" means that nothing someone does with another consenually can ever be wrong. It can, at the very least, be a wrong towards a third party.
That last part is in relation to a flashback I'm having to an argument I had with a friend where he argued that there was nothing at all wrong with him having sex with someone who had (and planned to continue to have) a committed boyfriend because "women are moral agents." That boyfriend was also a soldier in Iraq (which I don't think should have had any added weight in my friend's moral calculus, but I could be wrong, and certainly should have has some weight in his prudential calculus).
I'm so glad my IRL friends don't read my online comments outside of my own blog, because they would not want me discussing this.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:36 AM
The confusion/disagreement appears to me to be that some people in this thread (not ogged and not apostropher) are using the phrase "getting women drunk" to describe the intentions of some men, while others (ogged and apo) are using it note that describing a woman's actions as "having been gotten drunk" makes them totally passive, and is not apropos in many situations which aren't frat parties.
Yeah. Let's move it back to the drunk-driving hypothetical. A (for some reason outside the problem) wishes B harm. They're having dinner together. B says, "I'm only having one drink -- I need to drive home." A pours B a second glass of wine, and B drinks it. A suggests an after-dinner drink, and when B says no, says "It'll be fine, I'll call you a cab, drink as much as you like." After six brandies, A walks B out to the parking lot, watches B get in B's car, screech out of the lot, and drive into a bridge abutment.
Now, while B wasn't compelled to make the bad decisions B made, and is responsible for the bad outcome, there is a sense in which A "got B drunk", and A is a very bad person. Not a criminal, but a bad, bad person.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:38 AM
Yeah, okay, no one held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to drink. So the women get themselves drunk and.... what's supposed to follow from that?
That they can't be taken advantage of because they knowingly had some drinks? That doesn't seem correct. That if they are taken advantage of, it's their own fault? Again, very dangerously close to 'it can't be date rape, because she was drunk and didn't say no/fight back.'
That if a drunk woman throws herself at you, it's fair game, because she got herself drunk, and you don't have to exercise any moral judgment?
I agree that "I was drunk" is a poor excuse for some actions that occur while drunk, and I think that all you're saying is that if a drunk woman chooses to sleep with someone, that's her choice, and we shouldn't belittle her choice by saying 'Oh, women only go after sex when they're drunk and confused.'
But to say that because the woman chose to have a drink she couldn't have been pressured into anything and bears responsibility for ALL consequences seems wrong.
The advice here (poorly given in the poster) is to young men. Given the campus culture and frat parties and how it's been pounded in that 'no' means 'no' (solution, have no chance for a 'no'), it doesn't seem like a bad idea to advocate a mindset that says, hey, the fact that she's drunk isn't an opportunity to score because she can't say 'no'.
What's so wrong with waiting for an enthusiastic 'yes'?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:38 AM
Well, I was in a frat, but then it was a coed fart, so the peer pressure tended to work toward not taking advantage of others.
Me too, kinda. The house had been founded as a PKA house, but got thrown out of the national when they elected a woman president. By the time I lived there it was just called a co-op, but we has a basement full of old pike songbooks, etc.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:40 AM
all your wife gets is the backwash left at the bottom of the bottle.
Perhaps, but my first wife did get the deposit back on the bottle, at least.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:40 AM
You're only worth $0.05 ($0.10 in CT), mon apo?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:43 AM
Well, I think the drinking dynamics at my fraternity are about to change radically in any event.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:45 AM
You're only worth $0.05 ($0.10 in CT), mon apo?
I'm a pretty big bottle, Cala.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:47 AM
Doesn't it seem a little weird that drinking in the fraternity is fine (and presumably unpunishable in most cases), but selling the drinks isn't?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:47 AM
Worse than the "body as gift" thing.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:48 AM
At MIT, the school made all the frats go alcohol-free shortly after I was there. I think a lot of schools are like that now, meaning that the classic 'frat party' is either at another location or in some sense underground.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:50 AM
The disanalogy to LB's example (in some cases, in the ones where the man's intention was to get the woman drunk it's spot on) is that some people get themselves drunk in order to lower their inhibitions, no non-suicidal people get themselves drunk for the purpose of increasing the chances of a car accident. This goes along with SCMT's point about undercalling versus overcalling (though I don't think I'd have used that terminology).
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:53 AM
Arg, silvana. And dating is wrong, too, because there were no trial relationships ever in the past. People only got introduced to the person they were going to marry.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:53 AM
drinking in the fraternity is fine
Not if you're under 21, as most of them are.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:56 AM
Your body is a bottle, a pie, a flower, and a gift, and it belongs to your daddy, and for god's sake, you have no say in what you do with it. Daddy does, though.
(insert screaming and attempts to pull out hair here).
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:57 AM
Re: 56 you just slip out the back, Jack
I call foul.
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:57 AM
This area is all so gray. I wish it weren't, but it is. The more I think about it, the more it seems to be a case-by-case, person-by-person issue.
Here are some hypotheticals that I have trouble with:
In situation (a), I'll assume that I'm the person getting drunk. Let's further assume that when I get drunk, I often make really bad judgments and even black out significant parts of the drunken period. I know this about myself. (Note: this doesn't actually happen to me; it's just for the hypothetical.) So, I go out one night, stay out absurdly late, and wake up the next morning with a woman in my bed I don't recognize, who may or may not have been as drunk as I was. Who's to "blame" here? I'd most likely blame myself, for drinking way too much. I'd also probably not be that damaged by the whole thing, since I didn't remember any of it happening (leaving out the possibility of VD and such). One thing I'm sure I wouldn't do is blame whoever the woman was for taking advantage of me. Then again, I am a man, and I'm not discounting the power differences involved in sex, and the propositioning thereof.
In situation (b), a woman, with exactly the same tendencies as me, undergoes a similar experience, with similar results. Can she reasonably claim she was raped, or at least taken advantage of? I suppose she can. Although, it should be noted, she has no idea how drunk the guy in her bed was when the sex decision was made (by whoever made the decision). Let's say she decides she was taken advantage of and accuses the guy in question of rape (I don't know how strong her case would be legally; this is just a hypothetical choice on her part.) I would feel that she is committing a real moral transgression here, especially since the guy may have been just as drunk as she was, and for all she knows, she could have invited him back to her place.
In scenario (c), a loutish man has been trying to get a female acquaintence to sleep with him for the past few months. She's always rebutted his advances. They go out in a group setting, and have many drinks. After about her sixth, she goes home with the guy, who has been buying her drinks and making no secret of his intentions. Where does the "blame" fall here? I think we would all naturally say that it falls upon the guy, but really, the guy wasn't pursuing a secret agenda; he'd been making passes at her for months. Now, she almost certainly wouldn't have gone home with him absent the six drinks, but is it rape? Is it poor judgment? Is it just a dumb, regrettable decision? Is it her "fault"? Again, the circumstances can be tipped one way or another so very, very easily.
Please tell me if I'm setting up strawman arguments here; I think these three scenarios are not entirely uncommon ones.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:57 AM
some people get themselves drunk in order to lower their inhibitions
Sure -- this is a topic simply dripping with grey areas, which is part of the reason (although I can see why it would be annoying) addressing it with exhortations to young men (preferably better worded than FL's sign) rather than with another form of regulation makes sense. In a lot of the situations we're talking about, the only way to tell whether there's any wrongdoing going on is to examine the intentions of the actors, and the actors are obviously the best qualified to know if their intention is to do wrong.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 11:59 AM
Most women don't get themselves drunk so they have no agency in having sex, either, w/d. I knew a couple girls in college who did ('If I'm drunk it's not a sin!'), but that's really the exception.
Another analogy (goal: to compare sex to as many inappropriate objects as possible). A and B are drinking. They don't know each other too well, but they're quite happy, and A is relaxed and imbibing freely. Suddenly, A announces A's desire to spend a lot of money on B and hands B A's credit cards. B hasn't even refilled A's glass. Should B go on a shopping spree?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:00 PM
Before anyone tears me to pieces, I'm dashing off to lunch.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:01 PM
Oh God, Silvana, that was horrendous. I couldn't bear to read the whole thing, but this paragraph stuck out:
"The answer to this question will bring us the answer to the propriety of courtship as a model for a daughter's pre-marriage relationship with a prospective suitor. For the crux of the courtship question is not empirical, but principal. I define courtship as the discovery of a life-partner for a daughter under the direct oversight of the father. Any man seeking to beg, borrow or steal a daughter's hand without her father's endorsement is seeking to gain, in unlawful ways, "property" not his own. Daughters are Daddy's girls in the objective sense, and this particular daughter rejoices in that truth. I am owned by my father. If someone is interested in me, he should see him."
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:04 PM
This is a grey area, but I don't think you set up any strawmen.
In a) and b), I think the drinkers (Joe and the woman) are both primarily to blame for their own bad results.
In c), I think the guy is an asshole. Probably not rape (certainly nearly impossible to prosecute), but certainly willing to take advantage of someone who has rebuffed him in the past because she's not saying no at the moment.
Now, the line between a, b, and c is very vague, especially when the parties don't know each other; so like LB says in 61, it's really not a bad message to send to guys that they should err on the side of caution when determining whether she's interested, can't be bothered to protest, when she's drunk. There's really no harm in letting her take the initiative.
Because otherwise all the anti-date-rape info (which is what this poster is about, I'm guessing) can be about is telling girls how to avoid it. Don't drink, don't go to the frat, don't hang out with guys, and make sure you don't get drunk because then poor little boy just can't help himself.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:11 PM
"Sir, I've come to ask for your daughter's pie in marriage."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:11 PM
The property metaphor in that essay is bad, but my God, the age difference!
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:12 PM
Joe, I crossed with you, but I think my last comment addresses your issue. We're not talking about criminal/evidentiary standards for rape, here, we're talking about moral issues.
In (a) and (b), the blackout complicates it -- the subject doesn't know what happened. The other partner (female in (a), male in (b)), if they didn't black out, knows if they raped or otherwise molested an unconscious person, or coerced or aggressively persuaded a drunk into doing something they wouldn't want to do, or conversely, if anything that happened was freely (if impairedly) consented to by all parties. The moral status of the actors is governed by their intent when acting, regardless of how hard that is to know or prove later on.
In the third situation the guy is an asshole, but not a rapist, and the woman used poor judgment (assuming both that she actively consented, and that she wouldn't have if sober. If she didn't actively consent, and he had sex with her anyway, he's a rapist -- if she simply changed her mind, nothing bad happened at all.). Her poor judgment in getting drunk in the company of someone she knew wanted to take advantage of her relieves him of criminal responsibility, but he remains an asshole (to the extent that he knows that she will wake up unhappy about what she has done. If he honestly thinks that her drunken consent is evidence that she's actually changed her mind and wants to have sex with him, he's not even an asshole.) I'm not seeing a huge problem in resolving this one.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:13 PM
Don't drink, don't go to the frat, don't hang out with guys, and make sure you don't get drunk because then poor little boy just can't help himself.
The better advice is: bring a friend who will watch out for you.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:13 PM
Cala,
What's so wrong with waiting for an enthusiastic 'yes'?
Well, depending on the person, that may be a very long wait. I happen to know a strict Catholic who couldn't give an enthusiastic "yes" for a couple years even after we got married. The "sex is dirty"meme was firmly etched into her mind.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:14 PM
As practical advice, 69 is spot on. (That was actually what I was thinking with Joe's (c) -- they were in a group setting? What the hell were her friends thinking?)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:16 PM
Does Labs know to a certainty there aren't similar signs in the women's restroom? I think he owes us a research trip.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:20 PM
The better advice is: bring a friend who will watch out for you.
Good advice, but as whose-fault-will-it-be prevention it's kind of useless. Your friend might get drunk, too. Or worse, if you went to the party without a friend, you're fair game (because if you were smart, you would have brought a friend).
Tripp, yeah, I know. But in the context of a drunken girl flirting with a guy whose hoping he'll get laid, I think it's good advice to tell him to slow down. If she really wants to jump him, and he stops, she'll let him know, ya know? What's the worst that can happen?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:20 PM
I think "enthusiastic 'yes'" is problematic. In my experience, everything both is and seems more enthusiastic when alcohol is added to it. Also - what Tripp said, a bit. I got into one longish relationship purely as a function of boredom. Alternatively, the situation in which both parties are interested, and neither will move off the mark is the stuff of boilerplate romances. I'm not sure that the early beginnings of relationships are always that enthusiastic. The rule should be no sex until later.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:21 PM
As practical advice, 69 is spot on.
At the Mineshaft.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:25 PM
(Is the apostropher a special beer bottle that you can get a $1.25 for?)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:26 PM
I guess you'll have to buy me and take me home to find out.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:31 PM
Get a room, already!
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:32 PM
I think "enthusiastic 'yes'" is problematic.
I think you're a decent guy who is looking at a rule that covers a situation you wouldn't be in, and worrying that it might apply to you. Rather than saying "enthusiastic", think of it like this -- don't have sex with someone (to the best of your understanding at the time, recognizing that your understanding might also be impaired) unless you're sure that if if she were standing in her own bedroom, with the option of shutting and locking the door in your face and sleeping alone, that she'd invite you in. Consent achieved through pestering, confusing, embarrassing or frightening a drunk, while it may be sufficient to cover you against legal liability, is not sufficient to make you not an asshole.
There's a real problem in talking about this stuff with decent guys, in that women have more experience with the assholes than decent guys do. Even if only 2% (number invented for convenience) of guys would dream of attempting rape or lesser forms of sexual coercion, those guys seem to do it a lot, so a lot of women run into them. Bad behavior in this context can be a problem for women generally, without in any way being characteristic of men generally.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:34 PM
I thought you and Weiner had booked all the rooms. With bunny slippers!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:35 PM
I think you're a decent guy who is looking at a rule that covers a situation you wouldn't be in, and worrying that it might apply to you.
Which is often a huge problem in discussing issues of consent, one that goes unacknowledged; the nice, decent guys are worried that they might turn out to be date rapists (and the assholes never seem to worry).
Maybe 'enthusiastic' gave the wrong sense to it. How about 'unambiguous yes' instead of 'absence of a clear 'no' '?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:42 PM
I thought you and Weiner had booked all the rooms
The hotel staff inform me that the following conversation was recorded on the security cameras:
BG offered throatily, "I'll ring for some peach schnapps." To which Weiner replied, "With you, darling, that won't be necessary." Indeed, his bunny slippers were looking distinctly less lop-eared.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:45 PM
Re: 80. Yeah, I knew that would rebound in my face, but I still had to say it. And no, no goddamn bunny slippers.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:46 PM
I think you're a decent guy who is looking at a rule that covers a situation you wouldn't be in, and worrying that it might apply to you
At my age (roughly yours), I no longer need to worry about these things. Nobody can handle the day-after effects of alcohol well enough to get well and truly drunk. But I think people are misdescribing how these sort of things go. An awful lot of mating, both long and short term, is a function of getting one party or the other to stop obsessing about Ms./Mr. Perfect and get on with Ms./Mr. Good Enough.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:47 PM
Lop-eared!
(Peach schnapps? Ew.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:48 PM
the nice, decent guys are worried that they might turn out to be date rapists (and the assholes never seem to worry).
Exactly. The point needs to be made that if you're the kind of guy who is happily participating in a discussion like this, and if you're concerned by something you did that you thought at the time wasn't a bad thing to to do, it's almost certainly not what we're talking about.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:49 PM
But I think people are misdescribing how these sort of things go. An awful lot of mating, both long and short term, is a function of getting one party or the other to stop obsessing about Ms./Mr. Perfect and get on with Ms./Mr. Good Enough.
This, I don't follow at all in the context of the discussion.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:52 PM
The point needs to be made that if you're the kind of guy who is happily participating in a discussion like this, and if you're concerned by something you did that you thought at the time wasn't a bad thing to to do, it's almost certainly not what we're talking about.
We're not talking about voting for Reagan?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:53 PM
You have to get a woman drunk enough to forget about Mr. Perfect?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:54 PM
Did you get someone drunk and talk them into voting for Reagan? Otherwise, no.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:54 PM
I'd have gone with, "'If you want it, I have some peach schnapps.' To which Weiner replied, 'Biscuit conditional! With you, darling, that won't be necessary.'..."
And now I'll go back to being disturbed about reading and suggesting a revision on this.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:55 PM
This, I don't follow at all in the context of the discussion.
True story. At one of my frat parties, while playing a drinking game, the young hottie next to me who I've seen before, for maybe a month, but who hasn't ever said much to me says "Lets go upstairs."
To my room. Do we go? She is tipsy, maybe drunk, near as I can tell.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 12:57 PM
92 -- I think you do. If it had been a tipsy/drunk guy, and he asked the question of a girl he hadn't said much to in the past, it would go entirely unremarked, right?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:00 PM
I would say you wouldn't have been wrong to on those facts. I can see esthetic arguments for not having casual sex with someone who you have reason to suspect might regret it in the morning, but it's not clear whether those apply in this situation.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:00 PM
Note to self: peach schnapps for BG, bunny slippers for Cala....
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:01 PM
Doesn't seem to be wrong to go upstairs on these facts. She's tipsy-drunk, not hammered; she seems to be a pretty active agent (i.e., this isn't an unremarked groping).
So, do you want to go up the stairs?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:04 PM
I don't know where I got the reputation for liking peach schnapps. I don't actually think I've ever had any. (Can't stand raspberry stoly though)
When I was in the 8th grade, I had some peach sparkling wine in France that I thought was quite good. I don't know whether I would care for it now.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:05 PM
Arg.
There's supposed to be a 'the only question is, so...' in there.
Arg.
I am not hitting on Tripp (note to Tripp's wife.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:05 PM
So put away those bunny slippers, Tripp!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:09 PM
Forget the bunny slippers; I feared he might disappear to 'Sweden'.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:11 PM
92: a gentleman would probably say "no darling, you're drunk". A true gentleman would then not go on about the story to his mates incessantly for the next few weeks, but I would say that this would be above and beyond the call of duty.
Perhaps a catchy slogan for the urinals, covering both the sexual and hypothetical watch cases would be
"It is wrong to get by alcohol what you could not obtain simply by begging".
(I remember some dialogue from a Willy Russell play once that went:
"ya wanna come home with me?"
"what for?"
"a pizza and a fuck"
"what kind of pizza?")
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:19 PM
You know, the hotel staff mistranscribed the security video tape. The conversation actually went something like this:
"If you want it, I have some some peach schnapps," offered BG throatily.
"Biscuit conditional! And unnecessary, for if you'll have me, my bunny slippers are feeling distinctly less lop-eared," replied Wiener.
"If you don't mind my saying so, that was also a biscuit conditional, Weiner."
"So was that! And if you want a nice guy, I'm trying to be sensitive!"
"If you criticize my conditionals when we're about to make love, I'm tired of this liaison," sobbed BG, and stormed down to the hotel bar to order a shot of schnapps, neat, while Weiner was left alone with his slippers.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:19 PM
I don't stop by here nearly enough.
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:23 PM
This, I don't follow at all in the context of the discussion.
Well, hell. I haven't really been very clear, have I? Sorry about that; I have a head cold, and I keep running out energy to think clearly.
1. I absolutely agree with #79, at a minimum.
2. What I meant is that I re: Mr. Perfect/Mr. Good Enough -
I don't think people go to parties with clearly set predefined intentions about who to hook-up with or not. At best, they have something of a preference list. That list changes as the hour grows longer and the fifth grows smaller. Most vulgarly, for men, it's the case of beer goggles; I assume women have the same thing.
From the other side of the potential seminal transaction, you go in sure that the person you have a crush on would like you if they got to know you better, or got to know the person they were interested in better, or whatever. So you go in believing that your possible person's prior intentions are not set and not the sole measure of the validity of the transaction.
The party acts as a clearinghouse. Two people have been drinking, and they end up together. It strikes me as entirely possible that one person's preference line-up may have changed because of, among other things, alcohol. It's also possible that it changed because he got to know you better, etc. No one sorts that out at the moment of action, though.
In specific, I remember ending up with someone I did not intend to end up with because I felt guilty about prior flirting. I didn't feel comfortable going after someone else in front of her, and I felt a certain obligation to be friendly. That thought process + alcohol meant we ended up hooking up that night. We dated for a few months thereafter.
I'm not sure that's much clearer.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 1:24 PM
Well, I was going to say that someone wrote slash fiction about me but got bored and gave u