My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question

[SKL]

What's the difference between telling a woman that she shouldn't get drunk because someone might hurt her, and telling a man that he shouldn't get drunk if he thinks he will hurt someone when he's drunk? You can't see the difference? That's a pretty glaring problem IMO.

 

I would be telling both that they shouldn't get drunk (outside of a safe situation) because they may do something they may regret. 

 

I don't appreciate the implication that if sex happens, it is most likely the female was a victim.  Women do choose to have sex.  Sometimes the woman is the aggressor.  I've certainly known men who regretted a drunk romp afterwards because they got an STD or pissed off their steady or whatever.

[Bluegoat]

The idea that people should clothe their bodies a certain way in order to prevent their bodies from being the target of criminal activity and personal injury through sexual assault *is* a strong component of how rape culture is defined and identified.

 

"Rape culture" is the correct label for that sentiment.

 

In cases where the sentiment actually reflects the truth of the culture, that's rape culture. In cases where the sentiment exists, but the facts of sexual assault do not concur, it's still rape culture because the sentiment itself is identified as a cultural belief.

 

Dressing safely in a rape culture, or dressing in a way that builds the perception of safety in a rape culture is not a solution for rape culture.

 

Identifying the skirt length of teen formal wear as an idea that has any connection whatsoever with sexual harassment and assault indicates that these two ideas are indeed connected ideas within this culture. If we had a non-rape culture, that idea would have occurred to exactly zero people. It seems to have occurred to a lot of people.

 

Those people seem to think that dressing more safely would decrease assaults. That plan will never change our culture.

 

If you want to go with the rape culture theory, why is it you think that it is ok for these girls to accept and extend it, or allow businesses to make money by accepting and extending it?

 

THat's what these kinds of clothes are.  They are clothes that push the edges of modest  Not some objective sense of it, but whatever the cultural understanding is - what we consider "sexy" is almost always about pushing those boundaries, appearing just about immodest - it's intrinsically about a presentation of sexuality as object.

 

That too is part of what you are calling rape culture.  And yes, not participating in that is part of challenging that.  It may or may not reduce assaults - we really have no idea to what extent they are related to this larger cultural phenomena, any more than we understand that kind of thing with regards to other sorts of violence.  But one thing it will do - if people start to opt out, if we teach our daughters to have some understanding about how they, their perceptions, are shaped by that culture of objectification - that will absolutely have an effect.

 

Telling them their implicit acceptance of that evaluation is of no consequence, for themselves if no one else, is irresponsible.  And of course if boys are also living in that environment, they get those same messages and it affects their perceptions.  

Edited October 23, 2017 by Bluegoat

[8circles]

I would be telling both that they shouldn't get drunk (outside of a safe situation) because they may do something they may regret. 

 

I don't appreciate the implication that if sex happens, it is most likely the female was a victim.  Women do choose to have sex.  Sometimes the woman is the aggressor.  I've certainly known men who regretted a drunk romp afterwards because they got an STD or pissed off their steady or whatever.

 

I'm not implying that if sex happens, it is most likely the female was a victim. You are making that up.

 

People who tell women not to get drunk, who think a woman's clothing is relevant to her being assaulted, don't follow it up with - so you don't do something you'll regret but they follow it up with "so you don't get assaulted".

 

Telling a man that if he is worried about being accused of sexual assault then don't do something that looks like sexual assault and if you can't stop yourself from doing something that looks like sexual assault when you're drunk, then don't get drunk  - IS NOT THE SAME THING. Because there are not large numbers of women falsely accusing men of sexual assault, but there ARE large numbers of men sexually assaulting women.

 

If you are advocating the SAME EXACT MESSAGE to both men & women - don't get drunk if you don't want to do something you'll regret - that is fine. But that doesn't have anything to do with sexual assault.

[8circles]

I don't understand your question? I was referring to the idea that it was hard for guys to avoid a rape accusation. 

 

 If guys are worried a drunk girl will say they raped her, don't have sex with drunk girls. If you can't tell if she is drunk because you are drunk, don't have sex. No worries then, as far as being accused of rape. 

 

 

That the man might hurt someone because he was drunk wasn't stated or implied.  Only that he would be accused of taking advantage because there was booze involved..

 

This part of the conversation is about how men apparently have it so hard regarding avoiding accusations of sexual assault. So Ktgrok explained how to easily avoid that - basically don't have sex with women who are not consenting. In other words, don't hurt them. 

[SKL]

I'm not implying that if sex happens, it is most likely the female was a victim. You are making that up.

 

People who tell women not to get drunk, who think a woman's clothing is relevant to her being assaulted, don't follow it up with - so you don't do something you'll regret but they follow it up with "so you don't get assaulted".

 

Telling a man that if he is worried about being accused of sexual assault then don't do something that looks like sexual assault and if you can't stop yourself from doing something that looks like sexual assault when you're drunk, then don't get drunk  - IS NOT THE SAME THING. Because there are not large numbers of women falsely accusing men of sexual assault, but there ARE large numbers of men sexually assaulting women.

 

If you are advocating the SAME EXACT MESSAGE to both men & women - don't get drunk if you don't want to do something you'll regret - that is fine. But that doesn't have anything to do with sexual assault.

 

"People who tell women not to get drunk ... follow it up with - so you don't get assaulted" - are you sure this is true?  It isn't true in my world.

 

I also don't see people telling their sons "don't get drunk so you don't rape anyone."  I'm having trouble picturing that conversation actually.

 

Though nowadays, I could see more people telling their sons that unlike earlier years, you participating in bad choices while drunk could be characterized as rape even if it isn't, so that's one more reason not to drink and to avoid situations where you feel pressured to drink.

[Murphy101]

The guy who raped Crystal was not the same guy as the one who "targeted" her for a consensual hook-up. Geez. I did not SAY the man who raped her did so because she was pretty or sexy or he thought she was slutty. I said the TEENAGER who sought her out did so purely because he "wants to shag" and he (rightly) assumed she would. So the TEENAGED guy who was willing to be her boyfriend was ALSO USING HER. He ALSO did not care about her or love her or think she was terrific; he just wanted to get laid and she seemed likely. He also thinks women are objects for his use; that he doesn't take from her by force does not change this.

Actually. It changes everything. If nothing else, in that scenario, she is ‘using’ him as well making it a mutual situation. Consent makes all the difference. No one is denying that both sexes like to have sex and sometimes both sexes don’t care about developing a relationship. That’s not the same as no consent.

[8circles]

"People who tell women not to get drunk ... follow it up with - so you don't get assaulted" - are you sure this is true?  It isn't true in my world.

 

I also don't see people telling their sons "don't get drunk so you don't rape anyone."  I'm having trouble picturing that conversation actually.

 

Though nowadays, I could see more people telling their sons that unlike earlier years, you participating in bad choices while drunk could be characterized as rape even if it isn't, so that's one more reason not to drink and to avoid situations where you feel pressured to drink.

 

You are apparently not following the conversation.

 

"don't get drunk so you don't rape anyone" is a result of posters claiming it is so hard for men to avoid rape accusations.

 

Feel free to re-read.

 

It's hard to converse when you aren't following.

[ErinE]

If you want to go with the rape culture theory, why is it you think that it is ok for these girls to accept and extend it, or allow businesses to make money by accepting and extending it?

 

THat's what these kinds of clothes are.  They are clothes that push the edges of modest  Not some objective sense of it, but whatever the cultural understanding is - what we consider "sexy" is almost always about pushing those boundaries, appearing just about immodest - it's intrinsically about a presentation of sexuality as object.

 

That too is part of what you are calling rape culture.  And yes, not participating in that is part of challenging that.  It may or may not reduce assaults - we really have no idea to what extent they are related to this larger cultural phenomena, any more than we understand that kind of thing with regards to other sorts of violence.  But one thing it will do - if people start to opt out, if we teach our daughters to have some understanding about how they, their perceptions, are shaped by that culture of objectification - that will absolutely have an effect.

 

Telling them their implicit acceptance of that evaluation is of no consequence, for themselves if no one else, is irresponsible.  And of course if boys are also living in that environment, they get those same messages and it affects their perceptions.  

 

This is confusing to me. If I understand what you're saying, it's rape culture to dress in skimpy clothing. So does it follow that cultures that expect women to dress modestly aren't rape cultures? I think it's exactly the opposite. Allowing women to dress however they want, even if it's skimpier than I'd prefer, is a sign of a healthier culture than one that expects women to dress modestly.

Edited October 23, 2017 by ErinE

[Bluegoat]

This part of the conversation is about how men apparently have it so hard regarding avoiding accusations of sexual assault. So Ktgrok explained how to easily avoid that - basically don't have sex with women who are not consenting. In other words, don't hurt them. 

 

That's a really significant misrepresentation.  The discussion was around being at risk without actually having assaulted someone.

 

Did you really think anyone was complaining about the risk of being accused if you actually assaulted someone?  I am pretty sure everyone agrees that is actually what ought to happen.

 

Being drunk does not mean someone can't consent.   It is perfectly legal to have sex while drunk, with a drunk person, and to get drunk in order facilitate sex.  

[Janeway]

I would not have allowed it, likely. My daughter is not to that age yet, so I may say this but not neccesarily would do it.

 

My thing is, when women wear showy things like that, I mean, over the top where potential of parts being shown, it is degrading to the woman. It is along the lines where women are expected to be thin and beautiful and judged by their looks instead of their brains. No man would wear showy clothes for the prom. He would not rip of the sleeves to show muscles or leave the front unbuttoned like a Chippendale. But a man gets to by judged by his brains or his behavior. Even in TV, there are all these men of all body shapes and looks, but the women are perfect in looks..Hollywood's idea of perfect bodies and perfect hair and perfect faces. Heck, I think all this is symptomatic of why so many women face the casting couch. Unless the director wants to do the woman, he won't cast her. But the men, they can just be people. And the women seem fine with continuing this by continuing to dress like they are selling their bodies. 

 

No..I want my daughter to dress like she can run, and say "I am woman, hear me roar!" I don't want her to dress like "my body is all I have, my only identity, judge me by it."

[Janeway]

I would not have allowed it, likely. My daughter is not to that age yet, so I may say this but not neccesarily would do it.

 

My thing is, when women wear showy things like that, I mean, over the top where potential of parts being shown, it is degrading to the woman. It is along the lines where women are expected to be thin and beautiful and judged by their looks instead of their brains. No man would wear showy clothes for the prom. He would not rip of the sleeves to show muscles or leave the front unbuttoned like a Chippendale. But a man gets to by judged by his brains or his behavior. Even in TV, there are all these men of all body shapes and looks, but the women are perfect in looks..Hollywood's idea of perfect bodies and perfect hair and perfect faces. Heck, I think all this is symptomatic of why so many women face the casting couch. Unless the director wants to do the woman, he won't cast her. But the men, they can just be people. And the women seem fine with continuing this by continuing to dress like they are selling their bodies. 

 

No..I want my daughter to dress like she can run, and say "I am woman, hear me roar!" I don't want her to dress like "my body is all I have, my only identity, judge me by it."

[Garga]

I think It's about competition. And it's biological. females invest more of themselves in reproduction just by virtue of our long pregnancy and we can't birth as many children as a man can father so being able to attract a quality mate matters more. If there was one man one woman it wouldn't matter but when there's many being able to choose the best gives a biological advantage to the children.

 

That makes sense.  I'm learning more and more that our "free-will" decisions are so very often based in biology and we don't even know it--it's invisible to us and we think we're making our own decisions out of logic, but we're not.  But that's a thread for another day.  

[Murphy101]

And this is where Mom comes in, to say "honey, that dress is cute, but it shows way too much, you won't be able to safely sneeze in it, and people will get the wrong idea about you if you wear it to this dance. Let's find another cute dress that gives you more freedom of movement so you can have a good time."

 

Of course if you're an educated adult and still feel like the style factor outweighs the other concerns, go for it. I still won't like it, but it's not up to me.

The dresses shown are the current trend, so no one is going to get a wrong idea from wearing clothing that nearly all the other girls wear too. The navel cleavage ones are the only issue I’d have. They won’t be difficult to maneuver in. Don’t presume that because you don’t know how to move in one that no one else does either. My rule for trying on any clothing of any kind is to move in it. Bend, stretch, sit and stand and walk. Still good? Okay.

[Bluegoat]

This is confusing to me. If I understand what you're saying, it's rape culture to dress in skimpy clothing. So does it follow that cultures that expect women to dress modestly aren't rape cultures? I think it's exactly the opposite. Allowing women to dress however they want, even if it's skimpier than I'd prefer, is a sign of a healthier culture than one that expects women to dress modestly.

 

No, it doesn't follow.It's not that simple.

 

There is more than one way a culture can sexualize or objectify people, and it doesn't have a direct relation to how much or little clothing, or it can be independent of clothing.

 

You can live in the jungle, with no clothing, or in the far North, with quite a lot, and those don't reflect an effort to sexualize, they are based on environmental conditions.

 

Or one culture might say, women cover your hair, men, wear a hat in public, while others might not.  Those are customs related to gender, but not really oppressive or reductive, just social signals.

 

Or you could live in a culture that reduces women to being sexually objectified by covering them totally - as if they aren't human beings but only a kind of sexual temptation.  Or one which sexualizes them by displaying them, or making them helpless because because of their clothing, or demanding body modification.  (Some of these things can happen to men in a culture too.)

 

In our society, we objectify women by saying they need to be sexy, and in clothing that tends to be done by pushing the limits that have been set for modesty, which is why we seem to see things tend to be skimpier and skimpier over the last 100 years or so.  We also use much more elaborate beauty routines and body modification.  

 

I always find it odd that people point to men not generally being objectified in this way as evidence that women aren't.

[SKL]

Well, my stylish kid also likes to dance.  She has moves.  How the heck do you dance in something that barely covers your butt cheeks and then only if you keep both feet flat on the ground?

 

My other kid ... who knows in 3 years, but I could see her forgetting to keep her legs together while sitting.  :P  Yes I know this is a personal issue.  :P

[hornblower]

This is confusing to me. If I understand what you're saying, it's rape culture to dress in skimpy clothing. So does it follow that cultures that expect women to dress modestly aren't rape cultures? I think it's exactly the opposite. Allowing women to dress however they want, even if it's skimpier than I'd prefer, is a sign of a healthier culture than one that expects women to dress modestly.

 

This is confusing nudity or exposing parts of the body with sexuality and sexual exploitation. 

 

This is why promoting skimpiness in a patriarchal society is nothing other than about continuing to satisfy male gaze. 

 

Again, this isn't liberation. This is continued subjugation and a narrowing of woman's sphere. 

[Homebody2]

I think we can all agree on most, if not all, of the symptoms of living in a rape culture.

 

Clothing sends a message. I think we all agree.

 

If clothing sends messages that make us unsafe because we live in a rape culture, changing our clothes isn't even a band-aid. Frankly, I think changing our clothes just reinforces rape culture.

 

If we aren't working to eliminate rape culture, we are part of it. Unless we can successfully eliminate rape culture, the message of the clothes will always be a problem - no matter what clothes they are.

I think this is a good point.

 

When I was a teen back in the late'80s, I wore things maybe people would have considered sexy, but I wore them because I was fed up with being objectified. I know that sounds odd, but I also wore things that made me look like a stoner or rebel. My point was that it didn't matter what I wore, you should respect me because I'm a person!

 

I had gotten a pretty clear message from society that it didn't matter what I wore, I was still treated differently because I was a girl, a thin girl with b00ks, blond, big hair and a sweet disposition. Guys leered at me and cat called me no matter what I wore. Grown men made inappropriate advances. It was just gross, and these clothing choices were very much my way of fighting back and also a part of being a rebellious teenager.

 

I think it's appropriate to talk about clothing choices with our kids and how those choices can be perceived. But it's equally important to discuss how people shouldn't use those first impressions to judge an individual. You don't know the motivations behind why someone wears something, so don't pretend that you do.

[hornblower]

That makes sense.  I'm learning more and more that our "free-will" decisions are so very often based in biology and we don't even know it--it's invisible to us and we think we're making our own decisions out of logic, but we're not.  But that's a thread for another day.  

 

just rabbit trailing from this, but I don't really agree. I think way way way too much gets lumped into supposed biological explanations for what is fundamentally the cultural suppression of women. 

 

I'd recommend looking at Cordelia Fine's books. 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine

[Murphy101]

Well, my stylish kid also likes to dance. She has moves. How the heck do you dance in something that barely covers your butt cheeks and then only if you keep both feet flat on the ground?

 

My other kid ... who knows in 3 years, but I could see her forgetting to keep her legs together while sitting. :P Yes I know this is a personal issue. :P

A lot easier than you can dance in a ball gown. Which every girl ends up yanking up so she can either cool off or have more maneuverability at some point. Unless they are raising their legs above their pelvis, it’s not going to show anything.

[Guest]

Actually. It changes everything. If nothing else, in that scenario, she is ‘using’ him as well making it a mutual situation. Consent makes all the difference. No one is denying that both sexes like to have sex and sometimes both sexes don’t care about developing a relationship. That’s not the same as no consent.

It's not an issue for you that she's, I think, 15 in the book? The characters are teenagers.

 

I did NOT say it was no consent. I said I would not want MY 15 yo daughter to be targeted by a guy because he thinks she's an easy lay. I would also not want my teenaged son to look for a girl with that goal - I'll make her my gf because she is going to give it to me.

[ktgrok]

Um no.

That's a really significant misrepresentation. The discussion was around being at risk without actually having assaulted someone.

 

Did you really think anyone was complaining about the risk of being accused if you actually assaulted someone? I am pretty sure everyone agrees that is actually what ought to happen.

 

Being drunk does not mean someone can't consent. It is perfectly legal to have sex while drunk, with a drunk person, and to get drunk in order facilitate sex.

[Valley Girl]

 

 

Though nowadays, I could see more people telling their sons that unlike earlier years, you participating in bad choices while drunk could be characterized as rape even if it isn't, so that's one more reason not to drink and to avoid situations where you feel pressured to drink.

 

I don't have daughters, but that is precisely the advice we have given our sons as they head into the world.

 

Before anyone makes a snarky comment, they have also been taught the proper way to interact with girls, that "no" absolutely means "no," etc.  We also tell them that if they're in a social situation and see a drunk female being assaulted or harassed, they're to step up, say something, get her to safety, get her friends, call the police, whatever the situation warrants. At the same time, we've also felt the need to caution them that they should not be alone with a girl who's drunk. Not because they (the boys) couldn't control themselves, but because it's not smart to put yourself in a situation where one party has impaired judgment. The risk of accusation or having actions misconstrued is too great. So, yeah, because of my family composition, I do worry about protecting the boys as well as the girls.

[Bluegoat]

just rabbit trailing from this, but I don't really agree. I think way way way too much gets lumped into supposed biological explanations for what is fundamentally the cultural suppression of women. 

 

I'd recommend looking at Cordelia Fine's books. 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine

 

From what I understand though, Fine doesn't tend to repent the majority view in her area of study.  Which doesn't make her wrong of course, but for laypeople reading her popular books, it's something to keep in mind.

[Cindy in FL.]

I don’t think that is what is being said. If you have two drunk people who have consensual sex, why can the girl change her mind the morning after and the guy is guilty of rape or sexual assault? That is ridiculous, in my opinion. Consensual sex between two drunk people.

 

What's the difference between telling a woman that she shouldn't get drunk because someone might hurt her, and telling a man that he shouldn't get drunk if he thinks he will hurt someone when he's drunk? You can't see the difference? That's a pretty glaring problem IMO.

[Bluegoat]

It's not an issue for you that she's, I think, 15 in the book? The characters are teenagers.

 

I did NOT say it was no consent. I said I would not want MY 15 yo daughter to be targeted by a guy because he thinks she's an easy lay. I would also not want my teenaged son to look for a girl with that goal - I'll make her my gf because she is going to give it to me.

 

What I think is really the more significant question - and of course it's literature, but often literature really is about psychology - is why did she choose to dress that way?  Why was she sexually promiscuous?  What made her vulnerable?  And were these things connected?

[Bluegoat]

Um no.

 

No what?

 

There are at least three separate statements there.

[Bluegoat]

I don't have daughters, but that is precisely the advice we have given our sons as they head into the world.

 

Before anyone makes a snarky comment, they have also been taught the proper way to interact with girls, that "no" absolutely means "no," etc.  We also tell them that if they're in a social situation and see a drunk female being assaulted or harassed, they're to step up, say something, get her to safety, get her friends, call the police, whatever the situation warrants. At the same time, we've also felt the need to caution them that they should not be alone with a girl who's drunk. Not because they (the boys) couldn't control themselves, but because it's not smart to put yourself in a situation where one party has impaired judgment. The risk of accusation or having actions misconstrued is too great. So, yeah, because of my family composition, I do worry about protecting the boys as well as the girls.

 

There was a really good three part series in the New Yorker about this within the past year.

 

It was entered around campus issues, but that kind of situation and it's problems is essentially what we are talking about here.

 

I was disturbed but not shocked by the kinds of misunderstandings and accusations that were going around.  I was disturbed and shocked at what seemed to be racist elements of it all, which I had never expected to would be such a factor.  Although - I perhaps ought to have as I've seen that happen before.

[Janeway]

I don’t think that is what is being said. If you have two drunk people who have consensual sex, why can the girl change her mind the morning after and the guy is guilty of rape or sexual assault? That is ridiculous, in my opinion. Consensual sex between two drunk people.

 

I completely agree with you, 100%.

[ktgrok]

I don’t think that is what is being said. If you have two drunk people who have consensual sex, why can the girl change her mind the morning after and the guy is guilty of rape or sexual assault? That is ridiculous, in my opinion. Consensual sex between two drunk people.

 

 

Men can also be considered raped in that instance, if they are too drunk to consent. The difference is that they are less likely to report it as rape. Because men are less likely to report it as such, women are less at risk of being accused in a situation where both are drunk. 

 

But legally, it is a messy, messy are and again, people should avoid having casual sex when drunk. For a MYRIAD of reasons, including possible rape charges. But also because safe sex practices are likely to be forgotten or not dealt with properly if one is drunk, and because one is likely to choose an unwise partner when drunk. 

 

Of course, one can avoid all of this by avoiding casual sex in general. (again, talking about avoiding being accused of rape not avoiding being raped)

[Garga]

just rabbit trailing from this, but I don't really agree. I think way way way too much gets lumped into supposed biological explanations for what is fundamentally the cultural suppression of women.

 

I'd recommend looking at Cordelia Fine's books.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine

Well, I was thinking about the tail end of a talk I heard on NPR about how judges will judge an accused harder if their (the judge's) blood sugar is low because the judge hasn't had food in a few hours.

 

And I'm reading a book now called The Broken Ladder which is more about psychology than strict biology about our innate sense of what is "fair" and how we compare ourselves to other humans in status and it affects the decisions we make in how we use our money, how we eat our food, etc. It's much more complicated that I can type here, and it's linked to psychology and biology per the book, but I'd have to write half the book to explain it.

 

So I'm not just talking about clothing choices and women, I'm talking about many decisions that we all make throughout the day like using our money or whether we think we're rich or poor, and how to define 'rich' and 'poor'. There are hidden influences on us that we don't even realize are there. I'm just now starting to find books about this topic, so I barely known what I'm talking about...but it's there.

 

And it made me wonder what biological need or psychological need we might have for women to wear very uncomfortable clothes and be ok with it. Or is it a cultural thing? And is it a cultural thing because there's an underlying biological thing?

 

I liked the answer another poster gave to me that it could be our long gestational period, that women want to attract the best possible mate because humans don't have lots and lots of babies, like rabbits per se. Men could mate with a different woman twice a day for a month and 9 months later have 60 kids, so they don't feel the need to attract only a certain kind of woman, so there's no biological urge in men to work as hard as women do at being attractive.

 

But I don't know. I'm the one with the question and not the answer. :)

Edited October 23, 2017 by Garga

[ktgrok]

No what?

 

There are at least three separate statements there.

 

No, one cannot legally consent to sex when drunk. 

[madteaparty]

I didn't say "women" are low-hanging fruits to be picked by any man who wants a piece. Duh. I was talking about the perceptionsome guys could have. Do you really think there are NO guys who are just looking for an easy good time? Why would someone want to advertise the possibility that maybe they are the easy pickings? Why would a parent not advise her teenaged daughter against creating the impression that she might be? (To say nothing of the logistical issues in tiny short dresses, which was the main point when I first posted, but okay, we've blown on past that, now.)

And therefore we should change our entire world view based on what some anonymous guy might possibly think.

Like "those guys" don't already control much of our world already.

I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

 

If one can pull off such a dress, power, girlfriend.

[Cindy in FL.]

I agree with a lot of what you said here. I think that there is a general lack of personal responsibility in our culture, though. Young people are educated throughout their schooling about the effects of alcohol and drugs on their reasoning, decision making, and inhibitions. When you decide to drink to the point of drunkenness, you are, in essence, taking on the consequences of that action. Two drunk people who are unable to make considered decisions could have consensual sex and one or both regret it the next day. That does not constitute rape or assault.

 

Please understand that I say that ONLY in the context of both parties being drunk and having consensual sex. One should not be held to a higher standard than the other one. If a drunk woman can’t give consent, then neither can a drunk man.

 

If a man, or woman, who is not intoxicated and can make appropriate decisions, takes advantage of someone who is intoxicated, then that is a completely different matter.

 

Two drunk people having consensual sex equates to either two people being raped/assaulted or no one being raped/assaulted.

 

Men can also be considered raped in that instance, if they are too drunk to consent. The difference is that they are less likely to report it as rape. Because men are less likely to report it as such, women are less at risk of being accused in a situation where both are drunk.

 

But legally, it is a messy, messy are and again, people should avoid having casual sex when drunk. For a MYRIAD of reasons, including possible rape charges. But also because safe sex practices are likely to be forgotten or not dealt with properly if one is drunk, and because one is likely to choose an unwise partner when drunk.

 

Of course, one can avoid all of this by avoiding casual sex in general. (again, talking about avoiding being accused of rape not avoiding being raped)

[Valley Girl]

There was a really good three part series in the New Yorker about this within the past year.

 

It was entered around campus issues, but that kind of situation and it's problems is essentially what we are talking about here.

 

I was disturbed but not shocked by the kinds of misunderstandings and accusations that were going around.  I was disturbed and shocked at what seemed to be racist elements of it all, which I had never expected to would be such a factor.  Although - I perhaps ought to have as I've seen that happen before.

 

 

 

 

I will have to look that up. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

Edited to try to make clear that I was quoting Bluegoat. The formatting looked funky.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Reluctant Homeschooler

[Bluegoat]

No, one cannot legally consent to sex when drunk. 

 

Yes, you really can.  Google is a friend on this topic.

 

The point where it becomes an issue legally is well past what most people mean by "drunk".

 

It's very difficult to define the point at which someone is too drunk, but at least in some states it seem to suggest that you need to be incapacitated, sometimes even as far gone as passed out or unable to communicate.

[Murphy101]

It's not an issue for you that she's, I think, 15 in the book? The characters are teenagers.

 

I did NOT say it was no consent. I said I would not want MY 15 yo daughter to be targeted by a guy because he thinks she's an easy lay. I would also not want my teenaged son to look for a girl with that goal - I'll make her my gf because she is going to give it to me.

Is what an issue for me?

 

Do I think people of any age or gender should be having sex without marriage commitment? No.

 

Do I think the female’s clothing makes a difference to whether they do that? No.

 

Do I think people who have sex outside of marriage makes consent less of an issue? No.

 

Do I think clothing sends a message? Sure. It sends a message that she is female and wearing clothing that is normative for the fashion of that generation. It might not be a fashion I like, but it doesn’t mean she is seeking or deserving or should expect bad behavior from men.

[Guest]

And therefore we should change our entire world view based on what some anonymous guy might possibly think.

Like "those guys" don't already control much of our world already.

I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

 

If one can pull off such a dress, power, girlfriend.

To me, it is simple. It's also pretty much moot because *I* don't want to wear anything that revealing now and my only daughter is old enough that she makes her clothing decisions entirely herself. Nevertheless - simple. I don't see any point in being uncomfortable and unable to move about normally because my clothing either restricts movement, or will reveal body parts I prefer to keep private, or some combination of the two. I don't see anything freeing about that. I don't understand posters here fighting so hard to allow teenaged girls to think they are free to wear anything at all without anyone wondering why they would display those body parts, be unable to move about normally, and/or freeze because her clothing is too worthless against the elements. To me, in society we will never be free from people wondering why she would wear that and what it means that she does because it is normal to wear clothing t convey a message. We do it every day.

 

If other parents want to allow their daughters to wear dance dresses that are that small, it's not my problem. But I think it is not good parenting; that's why I titled my post as McJudgy. I do remember one dance where we had ordered a dress for homecoming and, when it arrived, I determined it was too short. So we ordered something else and sent that one back. I didn't tell my dd, "someone is bound to rape you in that dress"; I didn't even say, "people will think you are easy in that dress." I simply said, "That dress is too short. We need to pick something else." (In our case, I fortunately also have the power of the rules at a Christian school, so, if nothing else, I could always say the school will not allow it. However, I did not pass it off on the school. I owned it as my own standard.)

 

I do not have uber conservative thoughts on dress. But I also do not believe females can/should wear anything at all and that it doesn't signal anything. I'm not saying any girl needs to go to a dress in sackcloth. My daughter always had lovely dresses and looked very nice for her dances without her dress being just under her butt cheeks or with cut-outs or plunging necklines.

 

I don't really get why parents want their daughters to wear those dresses. I did also know that saying so would bring some hate mail my way. I don't understand why that is. But I don't guess there is any point in arguing it on the internet.

[Janeway]

My boys reported a scary, sad, sobering story to me the other day. They saw one of Ds's classmates from DE at a restaurant. He invited them to a party. They said, no thanks. Then he recounted the previous weekend where he was at a party and got really drunk. There was a really drunk girl there too and they went to a bedroom and had sex.

 

My son said, 'dude, not cool'.

 

Classmate says, ' oh she was cool with it.'

 

My boys, who are I guess compared to that nonsense are very sheltered were horrified.....we discussed the fact that the girl could just as easily decided she was ' not cool' with it and he could be in jail for rape. They agreed.

 

But my son then mused that if they are both drunk how is it fair he is the one who gets in trouble legally?

 

I said well that is a nice little puzzle to ponder while you stay sober and chaste and avoid all those pitfalls.

The laws that are so slanted against men just further promotes gender inequality and the stereotype that women are just weak victims who need to be protected. I have seen certain men post online (a town FB page where there are a lot of conservative men) that men need to protect women, they are the stronger sex and it is their job to protect women. When I said women are not weak, and both men and women can be victims of abuse, I was reamed for that. In my opinion, the term "rape culture" just means everything can be called rape these days..by women. If a boy or man is sexually assaulted or harassed, he is laughed at and mocked. People will say how they would trade places with him, that woman is hot, etc. BUT, when a woman consents to sex and later regrets it, there is a hunt for how can we slant this to make her the victim. And what people do not say, but they really mean, even if they do not realize it..is that females are weak and feebile minded and must be protected by the big strong intelligent man, let's hunt down and punish the man who obviously took advantage of the weaker and stupider gender.

[Guest]

Is what an issue for me?

 

Do I think people of any age or gender should be having sex without marriage commitment? No.

 

Do I think the female’s clothing makes a difference to whether they do that? No.

 

Do I think people who have sex outside of marriage makes consent less of an issue? No.

 

Do I think clothing sends a message? Sure. It sends a message that she is female and wearing clothing that is normative for the fashion of that generation. It might not be a fashion I like, but it doesn’t mean she is seeking or deserving or should expect bad behavior from men.

I don't know why you are having a hard time grasping my whole post.

 

I said is it not an issue for you that she is 15.

 

She was targeted as a teenaged sex partner because the guy purely wanted the most likely path to having sex, so he picked someone whom other guys and he determined was "trashy" and therefore was unlikely to offer resistence against having sex. He doesn't assault her in the book; it's consensual, but he picks her because he (rightly) believes he can use her like a toy until whatever future point.

 

She also uses him back and lies about being on the Pill so she can try to get pregnant. Sure - all this is consensual sex, but it is definitely not what I would hope for with my own kids.

[SKL]

Yes, you really can.  Google is a friend on this topic.

 

The point where it becomes an issue legally is well past what most people mean by "drunk".

 

It's very difficult to define the point at which someone is too drunk, but at least in some states it seem to suggest that you need to be incapacitated, sometimes even as far gone as passed out or unable to communicate.

 

I agree with this.

 

I believe it is unwise to get drunk and also unwise to have casual sex and extra unwise to do both at the same time.  But I don't believe any of that is illegal (assuming you're legal age for drinking and sex).

 

If it's rape to have sex with a person under the influence of alcohol (or other substance), then the % of people (male and female) in this country who are rapists is extremely high.

[Murphy101]

I don't know why you are having a hard time grasping my whole post.

 

I said is it not an issue for you that she is 15.

 

She was targeted as a teenaged sex partner because the guy purely wanted the most likely path to having sex, so he picked someone whom other guys and he determined was "trashy" and therefore was unlikely to offer resistence against having sex. He doesn't assault her in the book; it's consensual, but he picks her because he (rightly) believes he can use her like a toy until whatever future point.

 

She also uses him back and lies about being on the Pill so she can try to get pregnant. Sure - all this is consensual sex, but it is definitely not what I would hope for with my own kids.

Bc I’m calling BS on blaming her clothing. There was lots of sex at my high school and everyone knew who the supposedly easy lay was (rep didn’t always reflect fact) and it had little to nothing to do with her clothing. She could have even covered head to toe in goth black and have that rep. She could be in jeans and T-shirt’s and have that rep. She could be preppy chess club girl and have that rep.

 

Saying she was targeted bc of her clothing was and likely still is flat out BS.

 

All the other crazy crap you mention is simply morally reprehensible to me regardless of clothing, so I’m not sure what the point is wrt this topic of appropriate party dresses.

[ktgrok]

And had you confined your statements to this you'd have a lot less push back. But you also included, several times the issue of assault. which is why people are arguing with you, for the most part. 

To me, it is simple. It's also pretty much moot because *I* don't want to wear anything that revealing now and my only daughter is old enough that she makes her clothing decisions entirely herself. Nevertheless - simple. I don't see any point in being uncomfortable and unable to move about normally because my clothing either restricts movement, or will reveal body parts I prefer to keep private, or some combination of the two. I don't see anything freeing about that. I don't understand posters here fighting so hard to allow teenaged girls to think they are free to wear anything at all without anyone wondering why they would display those body parts, be unable to move about normally, and/or freeze because her clothing is too worthless against the elements. To me, in society we will never be free from people wondering why she would wear that and what it means that she does because it is normal to wear clothing t convey a message. We do it every day.

If other parents want to allow their daughters to wear dance dresses that are that small, it's not my problem. But I think it is not good parenting; that's why I titled my post as McJudgy. I do remember one dance where we had ordered a dress for homecoming and, when it arrived, I determined it was too short. So we ordered something else and sent that one back. I didn't tell my dd, "someone is bound to rape you in that dress"; I didn't even say, "people will think you are easy in that dress." I simply said, "That dress is too short. We need to pick something else." (In our case, I fortunately also have the power of the rules at a Christian school, so, if nothing else, I could always say the school will not allow it. However, I did not pass it off on the school. I owned it as my own standard.)

I do not have uber conservative thoughts on dress. But I also do not believe females can/should wear anything at all and that it doesn't signal anything. I'm not saying any girl needs to go to a dress in sackcloth. My daughter always had lovely dresses and looked very nice for her dances without her dress being just under her butt cheeks or with cut-outs or plunging necklines.

I don't really get why parents want their daughters to wear those dresses. I did also know that saying so would bring some hate mail my way. I don't understand why that is. But I don't guess there is any point in arguing it on the internet.

 

[Liz CA]

This part of the conversation is about how men apparently have it so hard regarding avoiding accusations of sexual assault. So Ktgrok explained how to easily avoid that - basically don't have sex with women who are not consenting. In other words, don't hurt them. 

 

Other confounding factors were included in this such as the use of alcohol / other drugs. Just saying if you add those kind of substances into the mix, telling a drunk guy not to do something is even harder...because as we all know alcohol (when drunk) severely impairs your judgment. But the alcohol angle is sort of veering off the main subject I think.

 

[ktgrok]

In my opinion, the term "rape culture" just means everything can be called rape these days..by women. 

 

Let me clarify for you. 

 

Sex without consent is rape. Gender has nothing to do with it. Sex without consent is rape. 

 

And yes, alcohol can effect your ability to legally (and morally) consent. For males and females. 

 

Don't have sex without the partner's consent. Easy. 

[ktgrok]

And I'll say that I've worn "sexy clothes" and wasn't assaulted, and both times I was assaulted I was dressed casually...shorts in one instance (not short shorts) and jeans in the other. Yes, alcohol was involved in one case, and pretty sure a date rape drug in the other. Passed out people can't consent. 

 

But don't worry, those who are concerned about boys being unjustly locked up for rape....most women never report being raped, and even if they do the likilhood of a conviction is miniscule. Our sons could be serial rapists and probably never face a single penalty for it. 

[Guest]

And had you confined your statements to this you'd have a lot less push back. But you also included, several times the issue of assault. which is why people are arguing with you, for the most part.

I don't care if I get push-back; I knew perfectly well that I would get it for saying sexual abuse could correlate in any way to clothing. That's why I said it was "totally taboo" to say I saw something ironic in the conversation about #metoo happening simultaeously with all thes tiny dresses. I'm not going to "confine" my discussion to things I expect everyone to agree with (which wouldn't even be true if I just stuck to dresses are too short).

 

There are also a lot of people who agree with me, BTW. Some of them just don't feel up to the argument.

[SKL]

And I'll say that I've worn "sexy clothes" and wasn't assaulted, and both times I was assaulted I was dressed casually...shorts in one instance (not short shorts) and jeans in the other. Yes, alcohol was involved in one case, and pretty sure a date rape drug in the other. Passed out people can't consent. 

 

But don't worry, those who are concerned about boys being unjustly locked up for rape....most women never report being raped, and even if they do the likilhood of a conviction is miniscule. Our sons could be serial rapists and probably never face a single penalty for it. 

 

Well as the sister of someone who was accused of rape by someone he never touched (as she later admitted), I don't appreciate your take on that.

[Murphy101]

I don't care if I get push-back; I knew perfectly well that I would get it for saying sexual abuse could correlate in any way to clothing. That's why I said it was "totally taboo" to say I saw something ironic in the conversation about #metoo happening simultaeously with all thes tiny dresses. I'm not going to "confine" my discussion to things I expect everyone to agree with (which wouldn't even be true if I just stuck to dresses are too short).

 

There are also a lot of people who agree with me, BTW. Some of them just don't feel up to the argument.

The thing is, it’s not taboo bc it’s ironic. It’s taboo bc it’s BS.

 

Like talking about flat earth like it’s actually a real thing on a science/education board is not taboo bc it’s ironic. It’s taboo bc it’s BS.

 

Both in this case are literally scientific BS. There is not only zero science to back such claims, there’s lot of science refuting it.

 

Case in point, women with tight short dresses are not targeted for nor actually raped or assaulted more than women in sweatpants and baggy sweaters. They just aren’t. It is that simple. And your insistence that they are is no different than some flat earther insisting a spherical earth just can’t be accurate. And saying there’s a lot of other flat earthers who agree with you, does not make your stance one bit more true.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

And I'll say that I've worn "sexy clothes" and wasn't assaulted, and both times I was assaulted I was dressed casually...shorts in one instance (not short shorts) and jeans in the other. Yes, alcohol was involved in one case, and pretty sure a date rape drug in the other. Passed out people can't consent.

 

But don't worry, those who are concerned about boys being unjustly locked up for rape....most women never report being raped, and even if they do the likilhood of a conviction is miniscule. Our sons could be serial rapists and probably never face a single penalty for it.

Idk that I agree. I do think false claims happen and I think proven false claims should be punishable. I also think our justice system should be a bit more confidential until there’s an actual conviction. But even without a conviction, once a claim has been made, I do think there is a social stigma penalty to it for men. Or at least, I know there would be in my social circles. No matter how much innocence is later found, that’s never the part people remember and I do think it forever changes a persons life in many ways.

 

But I also think this is a separate topic and won’t go further into it.

 

Suffice to say, I agree that sex charges are incredibly difficult to prove in courts even in the most ideal of evidence being available.

[Bluegoat]

It's ironic to be all cut up about sexualization of women, and then buying into it.