Do you believe that frat men today would not also do that or that no frat men of the past would have taken advantage of the passed out girl? Date rape has certainly been talked about since at least the 1980s.
Of course it is not her fault if she is taken advantage of. But the situations Ohiodad poses may be those in which consent gets somewhat murky and miscommunication can result. How drunk is too drunk to consent? What constitutes a “yes”? I think that is where we differ. I think the woman has some responsibility for her actions, even if she chooses to drink (but not if she is so drunk that she is not able to make decisions). Not sure that line is clear, especially when many such drunken interactions are consensual.
Here is my bullying analogy: some kids are awkward, don’t have great social skills, and make other kids uncomfortable. I don’t think that justifies the other kids being ugly to the awkward kid.
Does that make sense?
I understand it really doesn’t to a lot of folks, but that is where I am coming from.
adding: Although an individual may provoke another to bad actions, those bad actions aren’t justified. Sure there will be exceptions to the rule I am proposing, just in general I think this works okay as a rule to live by.
Right, because isn’t that the very definition of sexism?
It tells young women that they aren’t competent to make good decisions for themselves, that they can’t take care of themselves, that they need to be protected by more powerful people from their own choices, actions and even sexuality.
There was a period of time in my town where there was a rash of a very specific type of crime. There was a huge outcry about the root causes and so forth (this was not sexual crime), and crime must be punished, whether on campus or off, but in this situation, the crime was a rash of muggings and thefts in a specific area. Not ok. HOWEVER, 100% of the victims were people who were staggering drunk in the wee hours of the weekend AND waving wads of cash. Now, of course, you should be able to be drunk and waving cash on the street in the wee hours and be safe, but in the real world, if you take reasonable precautions, you won’t be a victim of that particular crime in that particular way. And telling the victims that they have some control over protecting themselves is actually empowering, as is helping them to understand how to avoid very dangerous situations.
mom2and: I am pretty sure poetgrl wasn’t saying her husband’s fraternity was the only one like that (in earlier days or now) or that all fraternities are like that (in earlier days or now) I think it was supposed to be an example of how she thought good men behaved and that she believed in good men. Poetgrl: I am so sorry if I am misstating your ideas.
Ohiodad was talking about dancing on a bar topless and grinding on a dance floor. I don’t think that should be automatically assumed to be an invitation to sex.
The thing is that risk can never be removed, the issue is where to draw the line. I always tell my kids (always, in many contexts) that there are some circumstances where a good outcome is not possible, and they need to be very careful to never put themselves in those situations. Going to a party, having a few drinks, making out. That’s all fine, normal, and good. But add in more drinks to the point where judgment in all areas is diminished and no good outcome is possible. It might be assault, it might be stumbling in front of a moving car, and my new personal favorite, it might mean passing out in the street and dying of hypothermia. But when you get that drunk, no good outcome is possible and it’s just luck if you live to tell. If my daughter allows herself to be alone in a bedroom with a guy she doesn’t know, same thing. No good outcome is possible and she is lucky to step away unharmed. Don’t do those things, don’t take those risks. We can not prevent every bad outcome in life, just choices that leave no good outcomes. If D is stone-cold sober and walking back across campus alone because her buddy is sick and runs into a predator, something terrible could happen, but that is not preventable by prudent action on her part. We can only pray that the wrong set of circumstances never arises and leads to tragedy.
@mom2and, I have been thinking all along about the same thing. (There is also never any discussion of birth control. Ever see a guy putting on a condom? The idea is almost laughable.)
Well, I think that grinding on the dance floor with a guy all night is at least a very strong indication that the person is quite possibly interested in sex. (The first is just rank exhibitionism, and her friends need to take her home.) It doesn’t equate to consent, no…
I just want to throw this out here since I do not think that all frat houses are bad, and that the majority are good people. It is also proven that frats have higher gpa averages than the rest of the student population in most schools, as well more volunteer work.
Makes a ton of sense OhioDad. It is how I have led my life and how I would have counseled a daughter. I think there is have never been an advocate of legislating personal choice. And it is not, I repeat not, a bad thing and never has been a bad thing, to teach our kids how to prevent themselves from becoming victims of crimes.
We teach our sons not to assault anyone passed out on the floor, dancing topless, or grinding on them…
and at the exact same time…
we teach our daughters not to get so drunk they don’t know what they are doing, and to be aware of what signals they are sending, and to not go out at night by themselves, and to scream no at the top of their lungs, and to carry pepper spray…
but we don’t tell them a rape is their fault. Women are not responsible for being raped, even if it would have been possible for them to have avoided it by being more cautious. Because we can never really be cautious enough. We have no idea what is in someone else’s mind. Showing your ankles has been invitation enough at some periods of history. A mini skirt used to be reason enough. And makeup.
I am now back to dstark’s story about even staying at home, locked in her apt, his daughter was at risk for assault because someone was trying to break down her door.
Now I’m leaving and hoping to find poetrl for a cup of coffee.
@alh, and in neither example did I say that the result of the conduct was unwanted intercourse. As I also said, no rational person is arguing that a woman should be forced to have sex if she expresses the desire not to. Several of us are talking about situations where consent is murky at best, and my question is what burden are you all willing to place on the female party where she is acting in a way that reasonably suggests a desire for some form of sexual contact? Not every situation is rape.
@zoosermom exactly right. Obviously there are physical differences. But I refuse to accept that my daughter is some fragile flower who needs her big bad brother (or her University) to make decisions for her.
Women are never at fault for being raped. Never. Period. End of story.
As a mother of young women, I am much more concerned with them being safe than being right. They should be able to walk naked through a crowd of naked, drunken men if they want to and not be touched. But, again, I’d rather they were safe than right, so I’m going with “don’t do that.” I can’t eliminate every risk, but I am happy in every circumstance, in every facet of life, to encourage to go with safe over right. This topic is specifically about assault, but this is my policy in every situation. Go for safe, even if you know you’re right, because there is no principle worth dying for.
Who exactly is talking about being raped? Is there one poster here who has ever defended the right of some random guy to have sex with a woman, even if she was dancing topless on a bar, if she verbally said “no” to sex? Have you ever seen a case reported, either on campus or in a court, where the woman doused the guy with pepper spray but the decision maker said sorry, you were grinding with him on the dance floor two hours earlier, once you do that, he gets a twenty four hour period to do whatever he wants with you?
The rub, I think, is finding the line between allowing/encouraging women to feel comfortable enough to enjoy themselves and express themselves sexually, flirt whatever but still instilling in them a sense of ownership of their decisions, and that the actions they take have consequences.
I also don’t think that, absent STDs or other life-altering consequences, for a woman to have had relationships or relations with a guy or two that she wasn’t thrilled about later is the worst thing in the world. You get a little drunk, a little stupid, it goes too far, you learn from it and never do it again, but you don’t let it define or take over your life.
“When you tell your daughters only a BIG HUGE LOUD NOOOO means no, don’t you worry that they’ll believe you, and think that if they say a teeny weeny tiny no they are actually saying yes?”
Seriously? That would never even cross my mind.
I want to convince my kid to wear the seatbelt while driving so she’ll be safe. But if she gets hurt in a car crash while not wearing a seatbelt, I’m going to be helping her get better. Not blaming her for getting injured.
I’m continually stunned how much people’s agenda gets in the way of obvious common sense.
@dstark That is an awful article. Yes most mass shooters are done by males. NO most mass shootings are not done by seemingly healthy males.
Rapists will rape because they are not sane, same with shooters and terrorists.
The issue is possibly that boys are more at risk for mental disorder.
We cannot teach rapists not to rape, same way we can’t teach alcoholics not to be alcoholic. It is an issue, not a choice that is made by rational human beings.
Here’s the thing: in the specific context here (for the 8,000th time), we’re talking about either a gray area where a reasonable person thinks he has consent, or a situation where he does have consent, but the partner (sometimes the partner is another guy) decides afterward that he or she regrets the encounter and files a complaint. We are still not talking about force. Not talking about drugging someone. Not talking about someone being incapacitated.
Because we all agree that the only solution to those things is to teach that they are never ok and punish them every, single time they occur. There comes a point at which the forest of straw men starts to show itself for what it is. An opportunity to hate on men. They are rapists, they are animals who only think with their private parts, they’re predatory monsters, and probably they’d be murderers, too, if we didn’t do something about them. (Masculinity is a beautiful, wonderful thing.)
Stark – teaching guys about masculinity might be a good or bad idea. It depends on whether there’s actually any evidence that such teaching would have any impact.
If it isn’t shown to have any impact, then it is a bad idea. Since it is useless and distracts from more productive alternative measures.
What you do should be based on evidence not ideology or agenda or surmise.