Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
TinaS1
Published Letters: 780 Editor's Choice: 21
I don't know how you were able to deduce my views on race. Pure genius!
Of course, you've been writing comments on Salon for years now, and it doesn't take a genius, pure or otherwise, to see that you are in the camp who think women are all the personal agents of Satan. You hate them so much it drips off the screen.
and yet you accuse me of hating men, hating blacks (WTF???).....let's see...somebody wrote something about projection awhile back, about being the very thing we claim to deplore...who was that?
Oh, yeah. YOU.
Physician, heal thyself.
So do I, although I love men too.
Whenever I get discouraged about "some men's" attitudes and start feeling angry towards all males, I remember that I also know any number of really bitchy women, so it all kind of balances out.
It's a glass half full or half empty situation. I don't concentrate on the men I have known who were/are abusers. I can remember men who are intuitively, as people, loving and respectful of women, children, and their fellow man, and I feel better. I think of the African doctor who is by any standard a genius, healing the victims of rape in the jungle of Congo, and the many doctors of DWB who have joined him, and I feel better.
Then I engage the jerks who get on this thread, and I don't feel better, but what do you do. You speak your piece and that's it. Maybe somebody learns something. Who knows?
Plenty of men take sexual responsibility for themselves. They are their own sexual gatekeepers; they don't depend on women to do that for them. To argue that men simply can't manage their sexuality and must rely on women to make all the decisions (in the form of accepting or rejecting them) is a big insult to men, as I've said repeatedly.
Just because you are a scientist does not make you an expert in everything.
As for the rest of the thread, we're back to the booze again; booze makes everything okay in the minds of these people. No wonder they drink. Good grief.
I especially love the poster who says "booze doesn't get you off the hook for anything else you may do while drunk, so why should women not have take the responsibility of being raped while drunk?"
The women, get that, the women. Love it.
So who commits the rape, the woman or the man? I think somebody is confused here.
But what's new?
AKA Smith's response to Curiso should also get a star. It's right on the money.
I knew we were going to get back with the obsession with drunk girls at parties. A couple of people have asked pertinent questions. Although I've answered them before I'll answer them again:
The laws vary a bit from state to state, BUT generally if a person is drunk they cannot enter into contracts. Drunk people cannot give you $100, they cannot get a tattoo, they cannot fuck you.
When the drunken wake up the next morning, they can charge the guy who took the $100 with theft. The guy who made the tattoo can be charged (and you will see signs in tattoo parlors saying the owners may not tattoo intoxicated customers). The guy who fucked them can be charged with rape.
Being drunk invalidates consent.
Don't have sex with clearly drunk women. They cannot give consent. It's illegal to have sex with them.
There's nothing "gray" about it. It's pure and simple.
All the fraught discussion on this thread is so much ballyhoo. If you can't stick your hand into their purses or a tattoo needle under their skins, why should you be able to stick your dicks into them? The law has started to recognize this.
Really guys, even if it was just morning-after regrets, why would you WANT to have sex with a woman who's going to be sorry she did it the next morning? Why? Isn't taking advantage of her that way just icky and wrong and sad on all kinds of levels? Add to that that it's probably illegal in most places now and if she decides to charge you with rape, she can...why are you defending this practice? Just don't have sex with drunk girls. It seems so simple.
Here's something else to chew on: I've talked to girls who were taken advantage of while drunk, and they all said that while the alcohol lowered their ability to defend themselves, it had not really clouded their ability to know what they wanted. In other words, they knew they did not want to have sex with these guys, but were incapacitated. That makes it rape. How the woman has been incapacitated, whether through drinks or being hit over the head with a board, does not matter. It's still sex against her will and that is rape.
The signatures of intoxicated people are no good either. They can't legally sign their name. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
Waiting now for the 30 or so posts saying but...but...what if he's just as drunk as she is...? Doesn't him being drunk count? etc. and so forth...although we have already covered that being intoxicated does not free anyone (man or woman) from liability, as when they drink and drive or fire off a gun. "I was drunk" doesn't cut it.
I imagine it's perfectly possible for a man to wake up and found that a woman has had sex with him against his will while he was shitfaced and he can press charges, but this does seem to happen less often, doesn't it?
But just in case you're going to throw that hypothetical (or in the case of Norway, not so hypothetical) argument out there, well then yes, the lady should do the time.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
