When someone belittles the effect of a flasher, or perhaps a peeping tom, or a public masturbator (no straw man arguments about "accidentally nude" men or public urinators please)that person loses all credibility in these arguments as far as I'm concerned. Where is this dismissive attitude toward crime coming from? As if any crime that doesn't involve injury can be dismissed, and anyone who reacts to them has hangups. These arguments sound suspiciously like the arguments used to downplay the effects of rape.

If you fail in imagination or empathy and cannot understand why a child or a woman alone would feel frightened by a flasher, probably no one can explain it to you. Maybe if you're a parent, and your child comes home scared and ashamed because some pervert made her a part of his sexual fantasy, then you will get it.

It's mean, it threatening and it's illegal and it does indeed traumatize victims, especially young victims. I don't see why girls should be more worldly about masturbating men and get over it, which is what some posters here seem to be saying. A t-shirt, a registry- no sympathy from this corner.

It would be fair to say that womn's attire calls more attention because of its variety if that were true in politics and thw law, but it really isn't. Female members of congress and attorneys basically wear a uniform, just like the men. They wear suits and they style themselves conservativey and formally, like the men. But that doesn't stop the scrutiny from the gallery of fashionistas who will hopefully be obsolete one day soon, and save the blather for the celebs who want to play. The article commented on the designer of her suit, for heavens sake. What does a female politician have to do to fly under these people's radar? Be a man, I guess. At least people are scrutiizing a US Congresswoman's clothing, and not Miss America's. That's progress.

I read nothing in the original post that said the rapes referred to were actually consensual sex among people who would have abstained if sober. I read very clearly that the study referred to rape occuring more frequently when people have been drinking to excess. That is, when women have been drinking to excess, because apparently the study authors didn't think that men's drinking habits warrant any examination. The distinction between a drunk victim and a drugged victim is lost on me- does drunk necessarily mean lowered inhibition and therefore buyers' remorse, not rape? I think we can all agree that the definition of rape is non- consent. That is, no. No, I don't want to, no I only want to make out, no I'm unconscious and can't consent anyway. Where does this assumption come from that the discussion is about drunk women who threw caution to the wind and regretted it later?

Being drunk is not a crime. Being stupid and naive is not a crime- thank fully, or ALL of us would have criminal records. Being drunk is also not an excuse for criminal behavior. Giving people pointers on how to avoid being assaulted is fine- for women AND men. Removing criminal responsibility from men because women are sometimes young and foolish is not.

P.S. I personally know 3 men from my old college boyfriend's fraternity who were raped by a frat brother when they were too drunk to defend themselves. It does happen to men more than people think- but strangely I don't remember anyone saying their drunk behavior made them responsible for their rapist's actions.

...and themsleves?

You're the Reason- you beat me to the punch! I was about to post that if fertile women never had a few, few of us would get pregnant.

Telling pregant women not to drink EVER because "why risk it?" is ridiculous. The way perceived dangers are avoided during pregnancy is as superstitous now as when women were told not to look at people with birth defects. Alcohol, cheese, sushi, hair dye, gasoline, cats, coffee- miniscule or non-existent dangers overblown so that women can feel that they are controlling the uncontrolable. Telling fertile women not to drink etc. for the same reason is beyond ridiculous and completely unnecessary. The rule of thumb seems to be: women are too dumb to measure their own behavior, so lets just exaggerate the dangers, because better safe than sorry. Universal prenatal care would be enough to educate the truly ignorant about truly dangerous behaviors during pregnancy-smoking, narcotics, accutane.

And to those who call parenthood 'breeding'- thanks for the heads up that you are assholes.

It's not threatening, or if it is, it's not because I don't want to accept a scientific fact that doesn't gibe with my politics. It's because I don't want to accept a "scientific fact" about common every day behavior that doesn't describe common everyday behavior in my own life or in anyone elses.

What we have here is another author riding the "gender differences" gravy train that evo psycologists, Caitlin Flanagan and others have been riding for ages. It IS insulting to say women talk so much more then men- everyone hates a windbag- and it's so obviously untrue that perhaps this "data" reveals the bullshit quotient of gender difference studies more than any other.