Indeed. It is however, the status quo, as is focusing on 'safety' even including men in the safety classes. It is all reinforcing the current state of affairs, and punishing women while permitting men is that state of affairs.

It is seen as her "fault" because she gave up her power by getting drunk.

By being drunk she has limited her control over herself - she can no longer make good decisions.

Now, does this give the man (assuming it is "always" a man) the right to rape her, no, it does not. But, what happens is that the guy becomes an opportunist. He sees an opportunity to rape her and takes advantage of it. It is still not right, but that is what happens.

The woman must exercise responsibility for herself. By being drunk and no longer in control of her actions she has put that burden of responsibility on someone else.

I agree.

Part of the issue regarding why universities attempt to sweep rape under the rug is the degree to which it is punished.

Here in Oklahoma, for example, the statutes (amended as late as 2002), still say that death is an available penalty for first degree rape (totally unconstitutional), and that there's a five-year minimum sentence, and the option of life or life without parole.

As a society, we generally view college students as being at the beginning of their lives, having all kinds of potential, and definitely being fixable as compared to other criminals. Prosecutors tend to give kids in these situations all sorts of breaks that wouldn't go to an individual from the proverbial wrong side of the tracks who did the exact same thing. Plus there's that whole having to register as a sex-offender thing, which can really ruin your life.

The above needs to be considered with how thin the evidence is on these sorts of cases. It often comes down to consent, which is almost inevitably a question of he said/she said, and it is definitely not unheard of for the female to be dishonest in that sort of situation, and even if we do find a prosecutor willing to prosecute getting a conviction in a he-said/she-said situation is certainly not a certainty.

Perhaps if it was possible to punish someone for a rape without statutes and societal attitudes that left the death penalty on the table, there might be more reporting of it. Until then, right or wrong (and certainly, this should not be viewed as my endorsement of rape), we will continue to see administrators and prosecutors utilize their discretion in cases such as these.

OMG, DF, you are SO right. I'm going to go out and cut off every penis I see.

No really...from one post to another, you changed from "teaching men" to "teaching children."

Obviously what I said made you realize you were wrong and I was right.

Thank you, drive through.

Beyond the "penises don't rule the world" point that some of us are making, I admit that I don't know what the discussion in this thread is about.

I disagree. She was drugged. Big difference.

Let me state this. I was once slipped a "mickey"/"roofie" into my beer by our pledges as a prank. I was totally incapacitated. I was somewhat aware of what was happening but it was beyond my power to do anything of my own volition. I woke up in the middle of the night in my girlfriends apartment and had no idea how I got there. I was stone cold sober as I had only had a part of a single beer. Unless you have ever been given one of these things it is hard to understand how helpless one becomes.

This type attack has nothing to do with the victim and it is the perp/s who should be called to account. Via further reading, it is my understanding that the perp was not a fraternity member but someone who lived in the house. At least that is the story the Fraternity gives. If she was indeed gang raped then many members of the Fraternity were in on it. That has not been proven, though.

Agree 100%

Even if a person is shit-faced drunk, when s/he says "No," it means "No." It doesn't mean "You should've been more careful. Now the rape is your fault."

That is what I said - even though the woman, or heck guy for that matter, may be isht-faced drunk, no one should take advantage of that situation in any way.

But, that does not mean that person should not exercise any responsibility.

If you know that you get totally drunk after a few beers and some shots and pass out, then that is on you. No one forced you to get that drunk and pass out. Still, no one should attack you, but you have left yourself vulnerable by your own means.

I'm advocating personal responsibility.

Go out, party and have a good time, but know your limits.

I see.

I hope you also realize that victims are often attacked when completely sober.

You're right. It is a HUGE difference if a person is drugged without their knowledge.

The way I have read the thread though, the issue has not been in particular if the person was drugged.


IDK, when I was cautioned by my parents and good friends I was told to never let my drink out of my sight, and more specifically, my hands.

Oh, I know.

But, that person is more aware if she/he is sober than drunk.

Thank you.

And what's up with pledges thinking slipping a mickey is a decent prank? Was that a sign of the times? I am glad that you had a safe outcome. That kind of incapacitation is terrifying.

The problem here is that all too frequently society puts the onus on women, the responsibility on women, to not be raped. Yeah people should be safe and be responsible, but if the reaction to a rape is "well she shouldn't have been drinking so much", or the inexplicable "she shouldn't have been going upstairs with Mr. Penis" of the post I was replying to, there is a serious problem and it is not with the rape victim. It's good to encourage responsibility, but never to put responsibility for a crime onto a victim. And as a society we should be "encouraging" more responsibility on the part of the rapists instead of only looking at the victims.

So yeah, when people come into a thread about rape and only want to say "Buuuuuut I just mean personal responsibility is important" when that is pretty much ALL society bothers to say, it suggests a real blindness to reality.

J.F.C.

If you think that my point was that we should stop talking about rape so we don't upset anyone, I AM NOT THE IDIOT HERE.

I read what this woman wrote, and I read also the op-ed in the WSJ last weekend. I have my take, and you have yours.

She's a freakin' pansy if she was so upset by those horrible fraternity houses at UVA full of preppy little assholes who wear oxford shirts and orange and blue rep ties to the Wahoo games on Saturdays and leave at halftime cause their team sucks and their buzz is off.

Seriously, would YOU let a kid scare you off of that campus? Riiiiiggghhht.

Girlfriend would NOT survive a visit to a Baltimore McDonalds....

Where is the sarcastic emoticon? I don't see one that is capable of conveying the correct level I was trying to express. So your use of the term "beliefs" reveals your mistaken interpretation.

There was an enormous amount of sarcasm in my post....and yes,

there was a lot in there to slam on "boys".


Rape is an ugly and heinous crime. Drugging women should NOT be an easy thing to accomplish in a room full of informed and aware females, and women have to know this and be smarter than men.

Because men who drug and then rape women are admitting that they aren't good enough to get a woman in bed any other way. I'm just saying that we're smarter than that. Or should be.