I note that in the instances I have read about women on campus being raped, more often than not they mention they had blacked out or were passed out, etc. when the assault took place. First question, then, is how old is the guy, the girl, and what is the drinking age, and where did the incident take place--that is, on or off campus.
I worried about such goings on when my daughter was at college--she graduated last year--but worried much less when I learned that she disliked large drinking gatherings, was careful with what she did drink.
posted by Postroad at 8:51 AM on November 11, in thread 154618
As a man who hasn't been south of 6'2" or 250 lbs in years, my direct action is to tackle guys who are wearing football jerseys and smash them into the ground. If anyone complains, my defense is, "Come on! Dressed like that, he was asking for it."
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:51 AM on November 11, in thread 154618
Clearly and reasonably men carry the legal and moral responsibility for the vast majority of sexual assaults and rape. If there is mutual intoxication/diminished capacity I fail to see how a woman who is intoxicated, and has diminished capacity, is able to give or withhold informed consent as if she was sober . One should reasonable assert that an intoxicated male carries the significant share of responsibility and culpability but I really do not see how that waives contributory, though passive, negligence on the part of the woman. If a driver is drunk it is not prudent to get in the car--but are you more or less likely to get in the car if you are sober or intoxicated. I am seriously trying not to set this up as blaming the victim but I see few other situations when there is mutual diminished capacity that some culpability, though not necessarily proportionate,is not assigned or absolved to both parties. I am only talking about when there is mutual diminished capacity. It is usually prudent to be substantially sober or only slightly buzzed as there is increased risk with any episode of intoxication (falling, fighting, spending money, throwing up, other socially offensive behaviors or sexual victimization or impropriety). But once again, I am not referring to one party intoxication which can be blatantly exploitative.
posted by rmhsinc at 1:52 PM on November 11, in thread 154618
whether the men raping me were sober or drunk, it at no time felt like an accident or happenstance or something he fell into. if a man's diminished capacity is a factor in him raping someone, that was in him all along. his victims are not culpable in any way for his crime of anger and entitlement.
posted by nadawi at 2:01 PM on November 11, in thread 154618
Can we just agree that getting drunk at parties is stupid and horrible?
Yep, men can get sexually aggressive when they are drunk. Because people act like shit when they are drunk, and sexual aggression is just one of a multitude of ways in which people can act like shit.
We can adopt better consent standards, hold perpetrators accountable, etc, and it will probably reduce rape. But as long as throngs of people gather at parties with the intention to drink, screw, or bask in the tension of others doing so, shitty things will happen. I basically won't go to any event like that anymore—I'm fucking done with them. I'm sick or pretending they are fun, or watching people treat each other like shit and laughing it off because woohoo that's what people do when they are drunk.
posted by andrewpcone at 2:22 PM on November 11, in thread 154618
Well, it was interesting to wake up to being characterized as a straight woman with homophobia issues. That was pretty choice, since the actual perspective I'm coming from is (as Conspire pointed out) that of a queer woman
When you sideline your minority status to gang up with the majority you belong to to slag off another minority, you are committing the exact same sin the article objects to re: privilege. Sorry for assuming you were straight; I just figured a lesbian would have a better handle on it, since hatred of gay men has a way of spilling over.
So, seriously, what is your excuse for being so goddamned homophobic that every time a gay man pisses you off, that gets filed in the Gay Men Are Terrible file? Do you do the same thing with Black people and Jews? That sort of thing is not a "pet peeve," it's prejudice.
Your experiences are not sacred. Sharing your cherry-picked worst interactions with a minority group negatively impacts innocent people. Take some responsibility.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:02 AM on November 12, in thread 23911
Bro, I was saying that gay men have a cultural problem with a very specific form of misogyny. If that's homophobic, is there a way to criticize gay men in what is theoretically my own goddamn community that isn't? Intersectionality is a fucking thing, and given that we're both queer and you're trying to silence me from discussing my experiences... Well, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
posted by sciatrix at 8:09 AM on November 12, in thread 23911
I think it's perfectly valid, and if you disagree you can state your reasons rather than using insults.
As I said before, the message seems to be "It's deplorable to restrain the media until it's done by someone we agree with".
posted by Sangermaine at 9:41 AM on November 12, in thread 154647
It's funny that this is exactly what conservatives say when railing about the mainstream media and trying to control the media narrative. We generally laugh at them for this.
Surely you know what a shitty rhetorical device this is. Can you not do it here?
posted by maxsparber at 9:39 AM on November 12, in thread 154647
from the fpp link:
> That these issues have now been subsumed in a debate over political correctness and free speech
> on campus—important but largely separate subjects—is proof of the self-serving deflection to
> which we should be accustomed at this point.
"Self-serving deflections." That's a patent assumption. "Self-serving", maybe, maybe not, proof one way or the other is required, it is illegitimate just to assume it. "Deflections", not--except in the sense that they divert attention from those aspects of a fraught situation which some groups wish were the only subjects of the, heh, conversation, toward other aspects of the same fraught situation which the same groups do not wish to think about. The only proof offered is the unsupported assertion that "political correctness and free speech on campus" are "largely separate subjects" from racial recrimination and self-righteous backlash, a patent and tendentious falsehood. In fact all of these are most intimately, inextricably intertwined. If that kind of blanket, unsupported assertion is all you got, you got nothing. (Except wishful thinking.)
from this thread, supra:
> That Kristof article falls into the same disingenuous pattern that Cobb points out
"Disingenuous," another patent assumption. Do you really imagine Kristof is arguing for beliefs he does not sincerely hold? Because that's what disingenuous is. Pics or it didn't happen.
Yes, yes, I know where I am. Only two kinds here, people who agree with us and people who are arguing disingenuously. To believe that is an intellectual illness; one cannot have substantive conversation with the intellectually ill.
posted by jfuller at 9:49 AM on November 12, in thread 154647
and we're now back to the original thread.
maybe time to put this MeTa to bed?
You're upset that this discussion is taking place. Are you therefore taking it upon yourself to derail the conversation so it can be closed? Because as a lurker watching what's going on, that's what it seems like.
posted by zarq at 10:51 AM on November 12, in thread 23911
> if I'm not the one with skin in the fight, I'm not the one who gets to dictate the tactics.
Then--department of unintended consequences--folks should be somewhat more diffident about announcing "everyone is racist" because that gives everyone skin in the fight.
posted by jfuller at 11:52 AM on November 12, in thread 154647
> [One comment deleted. jfuller, please just skip this thread.]
Done. I find that the mere pleasure of having an ultra-low user number is no longer enough to make me want to associate myself with the kind of Victorian-foundation-garment site Metafilter has become. Apologies to those who are legitimately my friends here (especially to Katjusa Roquette, to whom I just this minute finished linking to (friend)) and those who were pleased to link to me, especially b33j.
posted by jfuller at 3:19 PM on November 12, in thread 154647
No comments:
Post a Comment