So, let's say I covered myself with $100 bills and walked around the projects in downtown durham at 2am.

What would you say if I went to you complaining that I got mugged?

Would you say that I deserved it? Would you say that I put myself in a compromising position knowing the risk, and that I should accept it?

Why then, are people against putting some blame on women who get date raped at parties? They go to a party where they know there are going to be guys there who want to get laid. They dress provocatively, showing off parts that they know will attract guys. They drink, which they know will lessen their ability to make judgemental decisions... yet it is the guys fault completely if he has sex with her while she is drunk....


Discuss....

12/1/2005 5:04:10 PM

lock

12/1/2005 5:05:18 PM

agreed. People do the same thing with...."your door was unlocked? Idiot, of course the laptop's gone from your car"

12/1/2005 5:06:40 PM

I just wouldn't say they "deserve" it. More like they were just plain stupid and get less sympathy.

12/1/2005 5:08:15 PM

dress like a slut and you're gonna get treated like a slut.

im sure as hell not gonna get drunk with abunch of polar bears if ya konw what i mean.

12/1/2005 5:08:39 PM

[new]

12/1/2005 5:08:45 PM

because there are a lot of people out there who really need those $100 bills to LIVE.

it should never be that difficult for a guy to simply keep his dick in his pants.

12/1/2005 5:22:21 PM

it's the guy's fault ALWAYS because he is the one that is fucking RAPING HER.

don't be so goddamned stupid.

oh yeah, legally, no one can give consent when they are intoxicated.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 5:25 PM. Reason : ]

12/1/2005 5:24:35 PM

Legally, no one can give consent while stupid.

12/1/2005 6:21:32 PM

Quote :

"lock"

12/1/2005 6:22:32 PM

I agree with the OP. If you put willingly put yourself in a dangerous situation, you get no sympathy whatsoever from me when shit happens. It would be like me walking out into a thunderstorm holding a lightning rod over my head and expecting sympathy when I was struck by lightning. You are responsible if you run over someone while driving under the influence, so why are women excused from responsibility for their actions when they are drunk? It's a step backward as far as eqaulity is concerned, because it excuses them from personal responsibility which puts them on the level of children IMO.

12/1/2005 6:26:57 PM

I would be slow in saying that having sex with a drunk woman is not rape (unless she doesn't have a problem with it the following morning. If you find out that somebody slept with you while you were drunk and you don't care, you cannot bitch about it later), and dressing "provocatively" does not necessarily put the woman at fault; even whores don't deserve to be raped. However, I must agree with this thread. Hanging out with a bunch of horny guys while intoxicated and showing off your thong is a pretty bad recipe for disaster. If people can be held accountable for their actions while under the influence of alcohol, it should at least be up to the women to be smart about how much they drink. You know it will impare your judgement, so how can you claim to be the victim?

12/1/2005 6:40:27 PM

It would still be quite wrong that you got mugged, but there are reasonable safety measures one must take to avoid being the victim of a crime. Not walking around Durham at 2AM covered in Benjamins is one of them.

12/1/2005 6:59:06 PM

YES I THINK THEY DESERVE TO DIE

AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL

12/1/2005 7:09:11 PM

Quote :

"Shadowrunner: it should never be that difficult for a guy to simply keep his dick in his pants."

winn4r

12/1/2005 7:15:52 PM

Quote :

"oh yeah, legally, no one can give consent when they are intoxicated."

You can't defend a retarded point with an even more retarded law.

BTW, I think in Britain a judge recently rules a consent was always a consent. It was your choice to drink.

12/1/2005 10:00:52 PM

Quote :

"it's the guy's fault ALWAYS because he is the one that is fucking RAPING HER. "

this is why you're not a guy.

12/1/2005 10:31:22 PM

Here's an example:

Girl drinks at a party, has sex with a guy. She drives home, hits someone on the way. She says to the police that she regrets two things, A. sleeping with the guy, B. hitting someone on the way home.

Now, why do the police only charge her with the second incident but charge the guy for the first?

12/1/2005 11:02:34 PM

Because she's a woman, and she's so weak and vulnerable and needs to be protected. Obviously if she regrets having sex, then the guy raped her. No question about it.

12/1/2005 11:48:22 PM

Quote :

"because there are a lot of people out there who really need those $100 bills to LIVE. it should never be that difficult for a guy to simply keep his dick in his pants."

goddamn right


you guys are dicks... your misogyny really comes through when you continue to argue these points over and over

sexuality is an integral part of humanity
your logic requires women to forfeit a portion of their humanity in exchange for "safety"

it also implies that otherwise normal men are too base to keep themselves from raping any available and appealing female

buddy, you think you're doing guys a favor with this argument - but you're not

12/2/2005 12:06:39 AM

So women should not be responsible for their actions while drunk? They would not be excused from hitting someone while under the influence so why is it so different with sex?

12/2/2005 12:16:38 AM

now you're equating sex with violence

you've got a lot to learn, kid

12/2/2005 12:20:12 AM

Quote :

"drunken consent is still consent"

12/2/2005 12:22:46 AM

Quote :

"now you're equating sex with violence you've got a lot to learn, kid"

No, I'm speaking of personal responsibility. If you hit someone while driving drunk are you still not responsible? The same with sex. If you give consent while drunk YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE!! Stop treating women differently simply because they are women, and treat them like adults and hold them responsible for their actions.

12/2/2005 12:37:40 AM

I don't think either of those situations deserve any sympathy toward the perpetrators of the crimes. Just because someone flashes cash doesn't give anyone the right to take it or justify their crime in any way shape or form. same with skin.

You say someone has personal responsiblity to not do stupid things like walk around with $100 out in the open...I say people have a responsibility not to steal that $$ regardless of the situation. Only personal responsibility I believe in (in this situation) is the responsibility to obey the law.

I think it's a shitty arguement.

12/2/2005 4:01:49 AM

^i agree, personal responsibility dictates that people shouldn't rob or rape because it's the right thing to do. but i'll say this--i can sympathize with someone mugging a guy for money if he's starving and understand where he's coming from a lot more than someone raping a girl because she wore a short skirt and had a few too many.

12/2/2005 5:13:43 AM

^I'd tend to agree.

though if you're gonna steal to feed your family, armed robbery isn't the way to go about it. break into the corner store and raid the bread and PB&J isle. don't go mugging people to feed your kids.

12/2/2005 6:17:30 AM

Stealing is wrong no matter why you are stealing. I don't care if you are stealing a diamond necklace to sell on the black market or if you are stealing bread to feed a family, it's still STEALING!!!

12/2/2005 8:55:43 AM

So a woman going to a party, to have fun... automatically means you can have sex with her. That's like saying you (a guy) went to a bar and got drunk and some guy has sex with you. However if a woman had sex with you you wouldnt complain.

If you can't control yourself when you're drunk then you shouldn't drink. This goes both ways. If you are a guy and you fuck some drunk chick who obviously cannot form conscious thoughts then it's rape man. If you want easy pussy got o match.com. If you rape someone don't bitch when you get arrested and go through that shit.

Blaming the reasons for your actions on alcohol is stupid. Officers i didn't mean to kill the kid, i was drinking and was trying to get home in my car. That doesn't work either.

12/2/2005 9:59:58 AM

^ That statement only works because Bread can be had for free just for the asking.

12/2/2005 10:07:18 AM

Quote :

"It would be like me walking out into a thunderstorm holding a lightning rod over my head and expecting sympathy when I was struck by lightning."

um, no, it wouldn't. the lightning isn't a living thing with the ability to make rational choices. you are. In that case, you're the one at fault.

Dressing provocatively doesn't make you a willing target for sex crimes. this is disgusting. the fact that you are trying to use logic (bad logic) to prove it is even more disgusting. A rapist has the ability to decide whether or not to rape someone. The girl isn't deciding to be raped, no matter how she dresses. that's what makes it rape, by definition.

Now, if two drunk people have sex, and the girl later calls it rape, that's different.

12/2/2005 12:21:23 PM

I'm not trying to justify rape, people. I'm saying that you are responsible for your actions if you are under the influence or not. Like I said, if she hits someone while driving, is she not held responsible? So why should she not be held responsible if she consents to sex while drunk? Now if she is unconscious, passed out onto the floor and some guy has sex with her, yes it's rape. But if she is conscious and consents while under the influence then I don't see the problem. Furthermore, anyone, whether they be male or female, who comes to a party and gets overly intoxicated gets ZERO sympathy from me when shit happens. You get raped while your passed out? Put the guy(s) in jail, but you get no sympathy from me because you were a dumbass for getting so drunk. You put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation and you are tempting fate, hence my ligntning example.

And point out where I said that dressing provocatively makes you a willing target for sex crimes.

12/2/2005 12:56:38 PM

I also think part of the problem stems from women thinking that other guys at the party are going to look out for them. They think "Oh, Matt or Tom or whoever will look after me and make sure nothing happens, so I can drink as much as I want". This logic, however prevalent it is, must be stomped out. This is a sad, cruel world and it's every man AND woman for his or herself. You shouldn't be expecting someone to look out for you just because you are a female and use that to justify getting piss faced drunk. Look out for your own interests and drink in moderation, and shit like date rape wouldn't happen (or at least not as often).

[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 1:03 PM. Reason : ..]

12/2/2005 1:03:18 PM

Quote :

"is a pretty bad recipe for disaster."

Is there a good recipe for disaster?

12/2/2005 1:44:58 PM

Quote :

"Like I said, if she hits someone while driving, is she not held responsible? So why should she not be held responsible if she consents to sex while drunk?"

if that's what you're talking about, it's completely different form what the original post was talking about, and that's what I was responding to.

12/2/2005 2:13:54 PM

Quote :

"Now, if two drunk people have sex, and the girl later calls it rape,"

This is the only problem i have with these laws.

other than that,

Quote :

"it's the guy's fault ALWAYS because he is the one that is fucking RAPING HER. "

12/2/2005 2:53:31 PM

^ Nice argument if only it didn't use circular reasoning. He's raping her because he's the one who's raping her.

12/2/2005 2:56:47 PM

If you're defining rape logically, not legally, fault can only be assigned to the individual who is doing the raping.

12/2/2005 2:59:05 PM

Of course, once a rape is defined, only the raper is to blame. Duh.

The issue is how come sex with a willing partner is rape.

12/2/2005 3:07:14 PM

bravo snewf, shadowrunner, et al.

if you walked into a crime ridden area covered in $100 bills, you would only be stupid as you are knowingly walking into a dangerous area and provoking the inhabitants.

if you are female dressed "provocatively" and you walk into a room full of rapists, then i'd say you are equally stupid.

neither case deserves the attack. but they are stupid to provoke it.

if you are female dressed "provocatively" and you walk into a room full of college kids, i fail to see the provocation. i mean and what exactly is "provocatively dressed" anyway... some men would consider that a inch too short burka.

what you are implying is that college males are essentially natural rapists and have no ability to control their urges.

now if both are drunk and have sex, i have a problem with the woman calling rape. neither were coherent enough to give consent really. but, if one is sober (either the male or female despite what current law states imho), it should be rape as it was not consentual sex.

[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 3:36 PM. Reason : er]

12/2/2005 3:35:39 PM

Quote :

"but, if one is sober (either the male or female despite what current law states imho), it should be rape as it was not consentual sex."

Why? Are people under influence unable to control their actions?

12/2/2005 3:38:40 PM

depends on how under the influence. and no, i have no specific "gauge" for what that should be as it depends on the person. but if a person is obviously drunk as in unable to walk straight and speak coherently, i doubt they are really able to make good decisions or think through the consequences.

12/2/2005 3:41:28 PM

Quote :

"You say someone has personal responsiblity to not do stupid things like walk around with $100 out in the open...I say people have a responsibility not to steal that $$ regardless of the situation. Only personal responsibility I believe in (in this situation) is the responsibility to obey the law."

Well said rogueleader. Also, if the girl didn't have the ability to claim rape, think how easy it would be for an actual rapist to claim that the girl consented while she was drunk.

[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2005 3:48:53 PM

Except the law is MUCH broader than just protecting passed out bodies from being raped. Plus if the ability to think is a prerequisite for being allowed to have sex, half of the Soap Box will never get any. This is a ridiculous standard, seriously. If you understood what was going on and did not object, then you were consenting.

Otherwise, if you're drunk and someone offers you a cracker, can you then charge them with force feeding you?

Quote :

"Also, if the girl didn't have the ability to claim rape, think how easy it would be for an actual rapist to claim that the girl consented while she was drunk."

Spoooooky... I mean, everybody knows "actual rapists" routinely rape drunk girls.

[Edited on December 2, 2005 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2005 3:49:00 PM

I have one question:

Who is held responsible if both parties are equally drunk?

Note that I'm not talking about actual rape. I'm talking about if the girl was "willing" that night, but then decides she didn't want to the next day.

12/2/2005 3:49:06 PM

^^ahaha and agree with the "If you understood what was going on and did not object, then you were consenting. " the problem is that under a certain amount of influence, most people cannot fully understand or think through the consequence well enough. now if you have been drinking but can hold conversations, walk, function reasonably well, then sure i totally agree with you.

12/2/2005 3:52:48 PM

I agree you can be so drunk as to be unable to think rationally. However, it should be a burden of the prosecution to prove the guy clearly knew the girl was not rational. As it stands now, there is a presumption of guilt.

12/2/2005 4:04:24 PM

Quote :

"Who is held responsible if both parties are equally drunk?"

12/2/2005 4:05:41 PM

The beer company.

12/2/2005 4:08:59 PM

12/2/2005 4:12:59 PM