Letters to the Editor
-
Juliebird's questions
1. What is so appealing about a slobberingly drunk woman (besides being able to take advantage of her)?
You may be overthinking here: take out everything up to "drunk", and everything from "besides" to the end. That's probably about the extent of the thinking involved — and that may be being charitable.
To be fair, there are plenty of women who show the same degree of thoughtlessness. But there are two other factors worth considering, as out of fashion as it may be to admit them.
From a sociological view, many women don't perceive themselves as having to trick men into having sex with them. If they want it, they can get it (goes the assumption). Many men on the other hand are socialized to believe that they will have a much harder time of it unless they do something underhanded.
(Maybe these assumptions have some bearing on reality, maybe not — but they're certainly very real for the people who buy into them.)
Secondly, from a biomechanical point of view, it's much harder for a woman in a casual situation (no weapons involved, for example) to take advantage of a man than the reverse. So in a sense, women who get men drunk and then sleep with them are generally off the radar when we talk about coercive sex.
2. Why are we so quick to condemn women who get drunk, but not drunk men, men who hang with drubk women, or men who ply young women with booze?
Well, so far as I know, women who get outrageously drunk at parties full of men of poor reputation are sometimes subject to social censure, but drunk men who violently abuse women, or who serve alcohol to underage women, are committing actual crimes. I think a criminal conviction counts as condemnation of a pretty serious kind.
As a society we decided that it would be better for all of us if men and women alike could make decisions for themselves without the straitjacket of medieval notions of honor and purity. That's great and I'm all for it, but sometimes it seems that a lot of what these debates boil down to is figuring out what to replace those old notions with.
-
@Amity
"Well, so far as I know, women who get outrageously drunk at parties full of men of poor reputation are sometimes subject to social censure, but drunk men who violently abuse women, or who serve alcohol to underage women, are committing actual crimes. I think a criminal conviction counts as condemnation of a pretty serious kind."
In theory. But, just looking at this thread, there are plenty of hearts and minds to be won over, no?
Looking into the archives, it gets more clear. Female airman Hernandez, charging 4 male airmen with rape rape, finds herself up for court martial for "indecent conduct" for being drunk at a party, and having sex with the airmen. The male airmen are reprimanded for being drunk, but are granted immunity on the rape charges for testifying against Hernandez. The consensus on the Broadsheet blog? She probably wasn't raped, she hates men, and it was all her fault anyway, since she was drunk.
Any Broadsheet article on rape will bring out a torrent of comments about how women falsely report rape "all the time", and how women should protect themselves by putting not themslves in vulnerable positions (by dressing sexily, "manipulating men" or "leading men on", etc.) or accept the probability of rape as a natural consequence. THere are even comments about the ingerent unfairness that men can't get laid whenever they feel like it, without a lot of effort, while women can find a hot sex partner on a momen'ts notice.
What I'm saying is this: in this gray area of drunken foolery and general "sluttiness", why is the onus *only* on women to protect themselves? Would Britain feel it needs legislation if young men were taught "sleeping with drubk women is a bad idea. Don't put yourself in a situation where someone could bring up rape charges"?
Christ, even the dreaded Duke Lacrosse Team: as terrible a time as they had, with the false accusations and criminally inept police work, did no one think "Hey, maybe inviting 2 strippers to a house full of staggeringly drunk athletes might make us vulnerable to criminal suspicion?" (Compare the reaction to Airman Hernandez to that of the Duke Lacrosse players. Most of the DLP's most ardent defenders on this blog were absolutely vicious towards Hernandez.)
Now, note that I am not saying in any way, shape or form that the DLP's *deserved* what happened to them. One's reputation is precious, and slander is demoralizing (I've read "The Crucible"). But, shouldn't the same standard apply to both genders: don't be stupid, because women may be raped, and men may be slandered. If we heard more of that kind of rhetoric, perhaps drunken hookups, and difficult to prove rape cases, would become less prevalent.
-
you women take all the goodies and none of the risk, and still wonder why we resent you.
From a sociological view, many women don't perceive themselves as having to trick men into having sex with them. If they want it, they can get it (goes the assumption). Many men on the other hand are socialized to believe that they will have a much harder time of it unless they do something underhanded.
Amity, please post more. You are a voice of reason in a wilderness of man-hating numbskulls.
This is some of the smartest observational writing I have read on here in MONTHS.
I would only correct that many men cannot get sex PERIOD without it being underhanded, or at least less than above board.
Also, for those (JulieBird) who believe men should walk away from situations even mildly suspicious, such as the Duke Lacrosse party. While I am not a partying type of guy, I can completely understand the pressure guys are under to get sex from women however they can.
They not only have to set the stage and do all the things required to put women in a place and time to mate, but the women themselves INSIST that the men must bear 100% of the responsibility to do this. With the exception of the occasional woman who will propose to a guy, 90-95% of the time, it is the guy that has to do all the work, to jump through all the hoops, to make it happen-- or more likely, to have the possibility of it happening.
So, on top of this, you women (JULIEBIRD) propose guys now have to censure themselves constantly to make sure there is no POSSIBILITY of suspicion or risk involved?!? This is all but impossible and is also ultimately SELF-DEFEATING. For the 'less risk' taking guys do indeed back off, as I do, but the idiots, the more brave, more risk prone guys DO continue to set the stage under questionable crcumstances AND THEY GET REWARDED BY WOMEN FOR IT. Consistently.
So, we can see how women TWIST things around, insisting men act good, then rewarding bad men. Been told by me 100 times.
And men learn by this that they not only CANNOT WIN by listening to women, but that this sort of twisting implies that ANYTHING WOMEN SAY is subject to doubt, criticism and questioning.
So, this then places the onus on the WOMEN. If you want tyo be above board with us men, figure out where you women stand on this issue and offer an alternative solution. PLEASE.
One alternative I can think of is that women now begin 100% of the time to propose sexual relations with men and make it clear that if they are above board and proposing, that they indeed want it, and that if they are not proposing, that they indeed DO NOT WANT IT. And there is no more room for doubt or game playing.
Oh, I seee.... That is too difficult. Better for women to take all the goodies from us men, yet make us men continue to bear all the risk. Keep us on our toes and one step from jail if we happen to accidentally wrong one of you or if the sex just was not as good enough as you expected or if you are just a resentful bitch.
So, there is your answer. Women want all the goodies and none of the risk.
and we men get to hear women whine over and over and over ANYWAY. And women STILL wonder why I personally cannot take them seriously anymore.