The Sexist

The University of Virginia Excels in Rape Euphemism

Last week, University of Virginia student Madeleine Conger pointed me to some bizarre language the university has been employing to tip-toe around the word "rape"in its student safety e-mails. "Our Chief Student Affairs Officer, Pat Lampkin, sends us these handy safety reminders before major binge drinking holidays—Halloween, Spring break, fraternity bid night," Conger writes. "This time it's Foxfield—an annual horse race in the area that students use as a day to get devastatingly drunk in an open field.  It's also the site of some of the infamous Tucker Max's sexual exploits."

Let's see how Lampkin warns UVA students of the danger of a drunken a horse race:

If you are intoxicated, your impaired judgment places you at a much greater risk for the following: injuries; sexual activity that is later regretted or deemed to have lacked consent; or a police citation. Plan not to drink or set a drink limit for yourself and stick to it.

Tell us what you really mean, UVA. Observe the entirely passive nature of this "sexual activity that is later regretted or deemed to have lacked consent." Sexual activity can be "regretted" by someone, but only "later." Similarly, non-consensual sexual activity isn't something that actually occurs when the "sex" happens—but it can be later "deemed" that way. Here, responsibility is administered evenly to both sexual partners—the one who "regrets" it, and the one who is accused of rape because of it.

At best, it seems that Lampkin is warning students against having bad sex and inspiring false rape accusations—an odd set of priorities for a campus security expert to focus on, no? I have an e-mail out to Lampkin, asking if what she really meant to warn students of was "rape." I'll update you when I hear back.

Photo via Tambako the Jaguar, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Comments

  1. #1

    Wow. Yeah, I think they need to differentiate between making a bad decision (which is a legitimate concern) and rape (which is a crime).

  2. #2

    I think they're talking about rape AND hooking up with someone who you are disgusted by the next day. It's the standard "drink and you might get a ticket for getting raped by an ugly person with an injury" warning. Don't drink kids.

  3. #3

    Okay badly worded for a variety of reasons, but my intepretation says they were *trying* to say that BOTH rape and "bad sex you regret" are possibilities. Meaning two distinct types of actions.

    Or am I being too charitable?

  4. #4

    @NewsCat: too charitable. Nice of you, though.

  5. #5

    I mean, why not just come out say that Rape is a risk you take if you are intoxicated? What's with this "deemed to have been non consensual" bs language? That's... insane.

    Also, they really make sure to also put the onus on the potential victims here. If you get drunk EVER, EVEN ONCE you could Be RAPED and that'd be terrible but that's what happens when you drink. SO NEVER EVER DRINK, OR WEAR SHORT SKIRTS.

    A memo I'd like to see "Signs your partner might be too intoxicated to consent to sex" with reminders that there are legal issues surrounding it and that drunk people cannot legally consent to sex even if they appear to be "into it." Maybe some notes about active consent. Also maybe some guidelines for people who see stuff going on about when to intervene and the best ways to do it.

    Y'know, some things that might actually prevent rape, besides just telling people not to drink.

  6. #6

    They are saying that they want to avoid the drama of having to deal with imbicilic drinking leading to injuries, people deciding to have sex when they were drunk and then turning up saying that they were raped and warning of the possibility of genuine rape.

    Sounds reasonable enough.

  7. #7

    Pat Lampkin sent out a warning about end of the semester stress with the same language--if you get stressed, don't drink because you'll end up in some rapey situation but we can't call it rape because our students don't rape one another--right? This is Mr. Jefferson's University goddammit. Wahoowa.

  8. #8

    Here's what I'm wondering: is it possible that they were trying to use language that would remind men not to rape women without using the word rape? I've noticed that well-meaning but not very feminist guys tend to shut down when they are accused or warned about rape, but if they are reminded not to have sex with someone who's passed out, that's language they will hear and maybe even respond to.

  9. #9

    I second melduckie in that it seems like most non-feminist guys shut down when the word rape is used. Because society at large paints rapists as scary strangers that jump out of bushes (and warnings always euphemisms directed the VICTIMS ), it is easier for date rapists to brush their assaults off as a casual misunderstanding. This is so frustrating!
    I find that whenever I discuss things like the idea that boys and men should have to be taught about not raping people in school - what is appropriate behavior vs. inappropriate, when your partner is too drunk, etc. - they scoff and act offended that an average guy like them would ever be capable of such a thing. CLEARLY all men are not going to commit such a crime, that is not the implication - but it needs to be more widely discussed!!

  10. #10

    Maybe they don't need to send out a notice at all. Like, trust people to act responsibly or deal with the consequences of their actions, and know that there are laws in place to punish them if they do anything criminal. Seriously, what is this supposed to be - a disclaimer to indemnify the school? As a public service announcement, it's totally unnecessary. College students know what alcohol does.

  11. #11

    I think that young feminists and society are out of step, society and older people have difficulty conceptualising rape in its new meaning, the idea that female adults are deemed incapable of giving consent if they have been drinking while the male is deemed responsible is a new one and takes quite a bit of logical gynamastics to actually believe that drunken consensual sex is the same thing as rape.

  12. #12

    Naomi, you wouldn't get offended or laugh off someone telling you that you should attend a "how not to rape" class? I find that hard to believe.

  13. #13

    Naomi - thats pure hate. In reality rapists are a very small minority of the population and they come in both genders.

  14. #14

    Eo--a drunk person CANNOT give consent. To anything. Selling a house. Writing a will. Consent as a legal concept only exists when a person is of sound mind. So, yes, having sex with a drunk person is absolutely rape. If a man is drunk, and is pressured/taken advantage of/manipulated and made to have sex, then yes of course he was raped. This is not the same as when a person (who may or may not be drunk) is the active party in making the sex happen. If a man is the one removing clothing, positioning, thrusting, etc., and the one DOING something, then he is responsible for what he does. This is a very ridiculously simple concept, and applies equally to men, women, and everything in between--you are responsible for what you do, not what is done to you.

  15. #15

    kza--it should be a vital part of sex education, for everyone.

  16. #16

    @ kza: I would not like to see men herded up and forced into a mandatory do-not-rape seminar, but I would like to see a do-not-rape message be incorporated as an important part of sex education in high school and in college, because right now most rape-prevention is one-sided and falls on the female party: "Don't drink to excess," "Guard your drink at parties," "Walk in well-lit areas," etc.

    Someone above brought up a good point that men often clam up when they hear the word "rapist," since it brings to mind images of a scary stranger rapist. Getting a woman as drunk as possible at a co-ed college party so you can sleep with her may not seem on par with stranger rape to many of these men. I took a human sexuality course a few years ago and the instructor said that often, men who commit acquaintance rape view the encounter as consensual, offering to drive the woman home or make her breakfast after the rape. I'm not sure if this is because there is something pathological in these men that allows them to commit rape in the first place, or if it's a failure of rape-prevention strategies which place the majority of responsibility for rape prevention on the woman.

    I live in Illinois and just look at this ludicrous list of what the Illinois State Police thinks you should do if confronted by rape: http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/saconfronted.cfm

    "-It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results. (This method is not often used except as a last resort.)

    -Use your imagination and you can think of others."

    I mean, it sounds like they're speaking to kindergarteners instead of adult women. ("The possibilities are endless if you just use your imagination!") Although they report on the myths page that 80% of assaults are acquaintance rapes, their bullshit advice perpetuates the idea that most rapes will be stranger rapes. But most importantly, there's nothing under the sexual assault headings about what constitutes a rape and how you, a would-be rapist, can avoid committing a rape.

  17. #17

    Leftsidepositive.

    You said "So, yes, having sex with a drunk person is absolutely rape"

    Two drunk people having sex is not rape. I had drunk sex recently and neither of us are rapists or victims.

    Then you contradicted your first statment and said "If a man is drunk, and is pressured/taken advantage of/manipulated and made to have sex, then yes of course he was raped" giving an example of rape.

    See what you did? You said that having sex with a drunk person is "absolutely rape" and then qualified a rape as being when someone is "pressured/taken advantage of/manipulated and made to have sex".

    In reality, most people understand that there is a difference between drunken consensual sex and drunken forced/coerced sex/rape.

    People with a vested interest in artifically inflating rape figures to keep the wheels of the campus rape industry and myth class all drunk sex as rape.

  18. #18

    Eo--this is so ridiculously simple I don't see why you can't get it through your tiny brain:

    1) A person (male or female) who is actively instigating and perpetuating a sex act is responsible for their own actions (drunk or not), because he/she is actively making his/her body do what it wants to do, and is doing something to another body.

    2) A person (male or female) who is receiving a sex act must consent--and must be of sound mind to consent--for something to occur with his/her body.

    "Pressured, taken advantage of, and manipulated" are all fairly general descriptions for situations that rob people of their ability to consent. If a drunk person isn't instigating the sex, the other person has to do *something* for the sex to happen. A passive drunk person is *very* easily manipulated. Are there any other forms of sexual coercion that you feel that description missed?

  19. #19

    Right leftsidepositive

    You believe that all drunk sex is rape, only a small minority of kids on campus on feminist blogs are pusing that idea and they are being lead by professional feminists - this is how they artifically inflate rape figures and create the impression that there are rapes happening everywhere all the time.

    If I have drunk consensual sex on campus, myself and my happy and willing partner become a statistics in campus rape mythology, you get to pretend that there is a rape epidemic, feminists can preach rape/man hatered and women who had the beer goggles on the previous evening and thought wtf the next morning can justifiably hang someone for their own poor judgment.

    You think thats right, I think its wrong - you need to learn about tolerance. Im of a different opinion, that doesnt mean that Im attacking you personaly and that you are justified in making personal attacks. You are responsible for your own behaviour.

    Amanda, I dont think that person will reply to your email. She wont want to be mischaracterised and publicly painted as a "rape apologist".

  20. #20

    Eo, if your partner actually did consent beforehand, when she was sober, or was cognizant enough to make sound decisions (technically over a 0.08% BAC, but still in command of her faculties), then no one is claiming that would be rape. Your partner wouldn't state later that she was "made to have sexual intercourse when [she] didn't want to because of alcohol or drugs."

    BUT--how do you actually know you have a "happy and willing partner" and that you're not just projecting some drunk-slutty-girl-must-want-it mythology onto a person who is too wasted to understand what's going on or stand up for herself?

    Furthermore, someone who thinks "wtf?" the next morning doesn't sound like they were actually in any state the previous night to make any decisions.

    Just because some drunk people can choose to participate in/actively pursue sex absolutely does NOT mean that ALL drunk people can be painted with the same brush and it is NEVER okay to make assumptions about someone else's state of mind--drunk, sober, silent, naked, flirty, whatever: you are never entitled to decide for someone else.

  21. #21

    Why don't we have "how not to murder" classes or "how not to steal" workshops? Because the people who are going to murder or steal are going to do it regardless of whether or not they've had a class. So I really don't think that would help. Also, can we stop acting like people can get other people drunk? Unless you're shoving an I.V. in their arm, it's kinda impossible to get them drunk. Take responsibilty.

  22. #22

    kza--I don't know about you, but I learned a lot about respecting others' property in grade school, and there is quite a lot about not stealing, not plagiarizing, not vandalizing, respecting others, using words not hitting, etc., etc., in how we educate kids and young adults. Children are not perfectly innocent blank slates, and societies need to foster pro-social behavior.

    Yes, it is pretty easy to get someone drunk--add more alcohol to their drinks than they realize, convince them they're "safe" to have another, act like they're being "uncool" for not drinking with everyone else.

    Another thing, it is perfectly legal to be drunk. There are literally thousands of establishments for that very purpose in any city. Stop acting like we (women) have to apologize for wanting to enjoy the same night life that you take for granted, and stop acting like we give up our rights for engaging in perfectly normal, legal activity.

  23. #23

    Whatever Leftsidepositive

    "BUT–how do you actually know you have a “happy and willing partner” and that you’re not just projecting some drunk-slutty-girl-must-want-it mythology onto a person who is too wasted to understand what’s going on or stand up for herself?"

    You are projecting - your own rape hysteria and paranoia on to me and trying to frame a hypothetical non rape as a rape. In other words making a false accusation.

    You're not rational, you are like an american going around during the lynchings and seeing black rapists everywhere where there are none. You are involved in mass rape hysteria and you seem attack others that dont share your delusion.

    Just give it up.

  24. #24

    Eo--that's a very simple question: are you sure you have your partners' absolute, genuine consent? How do you know?

    The fact that you're getting all defensive about it instead of discussing positive, mutual consent speaks *volumes* about your values.

  25. #25

    Ok, so you are now trying to frame me as a rapist.

    Thats what your movement is about, organised false accusations.

  26. #26

    "Stop acting like we (women) have to apologize for wanting to enjoy the same night life that you take for granted, and stop acting like we give up our rights for engaging in perfectly normal, legal activity."

    I didn't say one word about woman. Talk about arguing for the sake of arguing.

    "Yes, it is pretty easy to get someone drunk–add more alcohol to their drinks than they realize, convince them they’re “safe” to have another, act like they’re being “uncool” for not drinking with everyone else."

    This is just stupid. You want whoever this mysterios person who's stopping you from enjoying the night life to stop stopping you, yet you're not yet mature enough to know when you've had one to many? And you still cave in to peer pressure? One day when you grow up, you'll realize that you have to take responsibility for your own actions. Try using the "he/she got me drunk cuz he/she said I was uncool!!!!" excuse when you get a D.U.I. and let's see where that gets you.

  27. #27

    Eo--how do you know you have consent when you are with a drunk person? Why won't you answer that question?

    And, I didn't say anything about your actions, I commented about your VALUES.

  28. #28

    @ kza: Rape is not inevitable, just like murder is not inevitable, so it makes sense to try to reduce the number of rapes.

    Murder is unambiguous. Stealing is unambiguous. *I* think rape is unambiguous (no consent = not consensual), but lots of people still think it's ambiguous. Plenty of people are still fuzzy about what does or does not constitute rape, who commits rape, who gets raped, etc. The Illinois State Police rape-prevention page alone demonstrates that rape is still heavily equated with stranger rape, and that there is a lot of headway to be made in the area of acquaintance-rape prevention. And it's only been in the last 50 years that marital rape has been recognized and criminalized in the United States.

    Again, I never advocated the creation of "do not rape" workshops. I said that rape prevention for would-be rapists needs to be incorporated into sex-ed programs in high school and college, and that more energy needs to be devoted on colleges campuses to making rapists and would-be rapists responsible for and aware of their actions. Will that eradicate rape entirely? Probably not. Will it reduce the number of rapes? Probably. Even if the number of rapes averted is small, that's still a huge difference--and I see no reason that this easy change couldn't be incorporated into public education.

  29. #29

    It couldn't hurt I just don't think it would work. I feel like a rapist today thinks he's going to get away with it. This might be a crime that could be detered through coming down on the people they catch to set an example. I think with most crimes it's best to be proactive, with rape however, it might pay to be reactive. Or both I guess.

  30. #30

    Leftsidepositive

    Im an adult, the women I know are adults too. When we hook up we hook up like adults. We can have a few drinks and have fun together. People like you seem to have a problem with that and want to classify it as rape to suit your all men are rapists hate agenda.

    This just means that myself and my friends are liberalted adults that can have a drink and have sex with each other and you are a sexist bigot whos interested in judging other peoples sex lives and framing all men as rapists.

  31. #31

    I said that rape prevention for would-be rapists needs to be incorporated into sex-ed programs in high school and college, and that more energy needs to be devoted on colleges campuses to making rapists and would-be rapists responsible for and aware of their actions. Will that eradicate rape entirely? Probably not. Will it reduce the number of rapes? Probably.

    No, it would not. Those who want to commit sexual violence will do so regardless of what anyone says to them. Keep in mind that many people do not view themselves as "would-be rapist," so no college woman or man would ever assume the programs' information would apply to them. Also keep in mind that it is the problems a person experiences that leads to the person to committing violence, and typically it is by addressing those issues that prevents future violence.

    As for the Lampkin's statement, I take it at face value. Plenty of people engage in sexual activities while intoxicated and later regret doing so or were too drunk to remember what occurred and therefore assume the sex was not consensual. The best suggestion would be to avoid drinking or limiting one's drinking in order to prevent that from occurring.

  32. #32

    Eo:

    You might be liberated, but you're _not_ an adult, however old you are. Your responses to a clear and simple question - which didn't accuse you of anything - have included:
    "you are now trying to frame me as a rapist"
    "you are a sexist bigot whos interested in judging other peoples sex lives and framing all men as rapists"

    This is a teenage response, not an adult one. An adult might refuse to discuss their personal values, or offer them up for critique, or answer the question, or leave the discussion, or suggest a more interesting question. "I'm not answering because you're trying to frame me for rape" is a child's evasion, barely a step up from "la la la la la la la can't hear you".

    I repeat the question: How does the (non-drunk) partner know when a (drunk) partner has given real consent? What do you think the criteria are?

  33. #33

    Leftside you said---

    "Eo...how do you actually know you have a “happy and willing partner”"

    and "Eo–how do you know you have consent when you are with a drunk person?"

    :) Because I tell him I am. I can unequivocally, and with utter confidence say Eo is not a rapist, nor has a rapist mentality. Neither does he hate women.

    At any rate....yes women and men can be taken advantage of when drunk, but the state of being drunk does not mean ALL sex had while drunk is rape. There ARE grey areas

  34. #34

    Hey tash
    You drinking tonight?

  35. #35

    Why yes...yes I am....what did you have in mind?

  36. #36

    I was thinking we could get elephant drunk a fuck like monkeys.

  37. #37

    *grabs drink, runs for a taxi while tearing off her clothes*

  38. #38

    hey but you're drunk, and Im drunk so maybe we cant...

    one of the sex-negative fascists from here might report us for raping each other....

  39. #39

    but being drunk never stopped us before...is there some kind of grandfather clause?

    *tells taxi driver to 'step on it'*

  40. #40

    How much do y'all want to bet that Tash is a figment of Eo's imagination?

  41. #41

    Toysoldier, you always (and I mean ALWAYS) complain that people don't take your victimization seriously enough, and then you pull out TONS of victim-blaming when it comes to women!

    Oh, gee, we just don't have the right to get drunk and party like normal people do!! Well, I guess we have to be perfectly virginal and never have any fun and that will "prevent that from occurring." Never mind that virgins are raped, never mind that people who think they are with trusted friends are raped, and never mind that society should take steps to get rid of the PERPETRATORS, not tell half its population to live like second-class citizens.

    I'm shocked that you, a rape survivor, would spout such vile nonsense like someone may have been "too drunk to remember what occurred and therefore assume the sex was not consensual." If a person is too drunk to remember, they are too drunk to give consent. Why do you think it's okay to rape a drunk person? Hey, they were passed out, so what do they know? They might have enjoyed it? It's only a crime if they remember every detail, right?! Do you remember every detail of being raped at the age of three? I don't think I remember anything from being three. Why do you just assume it was not consensual? (Note: that last sentiment is intentionally ugly & inflammatory...I'm vainly hoping Toysoldier has some self-awareness to realize that taking sexual advantage of the incapacitated is wrong.)

    Maybe you should take a break from expressing your seething resentment towards women and actually learn something about sexual respect & consent. It would help you more as a survivor and make you a much better activist.

    And, another reason we need this type of sex education is that uneducated people will build up myths of "she was drinking so she really wanted it" and other variants, and it's important to tackle these head-on. The more explicitly we state that those are NOT okay, the harder it is for people to justify "ambiguous" consent as part of their sexual practice. Furthermore, it also means that the population at large--people like Toysoldier and Lampkin--won't just say, "Oh, it wasn't really rape!" but will know to aggressively shun and/or prosecute people who take advantage of "ambiguity" so that it would be culturally reinforced that this is not okay and that people would understand that raping someone under these circumstances has social and legal consequences.

  42. #42

    Haha, yeah I kinda suspect that "Tash" is really Eo with a different e-mail address, but that's neither here nor there.

    Eo, if Tash is real, then you should pay attention to what she said in response to LeftSidePositive's question.

    ":) Because I tell him I am"

    THIS is the simple answer to the simple question you've been evading all this time. If a woman is drunk (but not so drunk as to be either unconscious or unable to meaningfully consent to anything...that is, drunk, but still in control of her faculties), there is an easy way to tell whether or not she's consenting.

    If she tells you she is.

    There you go. That's all you need (if the consent is ongoing.) Are we all sexually repressed man-hating fascists for assuming that, in order to have consensual drunk sex, you must be aware that your partner is still sober enough to be of sound mind, and to make sure she consents? Not so much.

  43. #43

    "Oh, gee, we just don’t have the right to get drunk and party like normal people do!! Well, I guess we have to be perfectly virginal and never have any fun and that will “prevent that from occurring.”

    No one is saying that. Stop trying to be the victim so hard. He suggested not getting drunk...I don't think you can argue that if no one drinks, there wouldn't be as much questionable hook ups/rapes. That doesn't mean you shouldn't drink or if you do and you get raped you're at fault. Just a suggestion.

  44. #44

    I’m coming late to the discussion, but I want to say that during the week before my Freshman year of college as part of mandatory orientation I did attend a class much like the one Naomi is suggesting at comment #9 and that kza and eo are objecting to at #12 and #13.

    As a man raised in this culture, I have to say that rather than find the session offensive I found it helpful. It had, honestly, never occurred to me that one could be intoxicated enough to be unable to consent and not be passed out. (Granted I had little experience with alcohol before college, but the cultural messages I had received never led me to think this could be the case) I would like to think that I would have been able to figure this out on my own had I been confronted with this situation before I was explicitly taught this, but I honestly don’t know if it would have occurred to me. The class was well designed, careful to make it clear that anyone male or female who initiated sex with a person too intoxicated to consent (male or female) was guilty of rape. It was an important thing to hear. But more importantly, that it was part of the mandatory orientation sent the message that my college cared about sexual assault and would not tolerate it.
    To this day, more than a decade after I took that class, it stays with me and I am very glad that it is something I was required to do.

  45. #45

    I was curious to nail down acquaintance rape since so many of the commentators appear to hold the belief that it is inevitable or that the perpetrators would never hold themselves responsible for the act of rape, or take steps to prevent the act of rape.

    http://www.aaets.org/arts/art13.htm

    And lo and behold, look what I found!

    "Finally, taking drugs or alcohol is commonly associated with sexual aggression. Of the men who were identified as having committed acquaintance rape, 75 percent had taken drugs or alcohol just prior to the rape (Koss, 1988)."

    Why isn't anyone telling acquaintance rapists to lay off the alcohol or controlled substances? If these men know that alcohol or drugs will increase the likelihood that they will rape a woman, they should lay off the drinks. Maybe institute a buddy system so that their friends can prevent them from taking advantage of women. After all, THEY ought to take responsibility for themselves, oughtn't they?

    LeftSidePositive is absolutely, 100% correct in pointing out that all kinds of women get raped, regardless of what they do or do not do to protect themselves against rape.

    I have never been raped and it would be nice to be able to believe that my personal actions are the reason why I have never been raped, but I know that it's sheer dumb luck. When I first started drinking at age 17, I never drank to excess and I always drank in the safety of my cousin's bedroom. But sometimes we had a boy or two over--a boy we were good friends with, but a boy nonetheless. I've been to parties where there's a keg and a nice, friendly young man, usually the host, offers to pump a beer for me and I accept, when rape-prevention advice tells me I really should have gone into the other room and pumped that beer myself. I've been to bars and trusted male friends and potential male lovers to buy me drinks, when rape-prevention advice tells me I really should have followed them to the bar and made sure they weren't putting date-rape drugs into my drink. I've have gotten drunk in male friends' and potential male lovers' apartments or accepted rides home from them *without anyone else around*, when rape-prevention advice more or less tells me to avoid being alone with men at all costs. The point being, I've been plenty "responsible" in many of my actions, but was "stupidly" trusting in other situations as anyone can see.

    Someone very close to me committed one of the same actions that I've committed multiple times--letting a male friend drive her home when she was drunk--and he pulled over and raped her. I was the first and only person she told in the thirty-five years since the rape occurred. Dumb luck is the only thing dividing me from her.

    I'd like to give a shout-out to those male friends and male acquaintances that did not put date-rape drugs in my drinks and did not rape me when I was drunk and alone with them. They did sexually what men should do when women are drunk and either uninterested in them or unable to consent to sex: nothing.

  46. #46

    Leftside "How much do y’all want to bet that Tash is a figment of Eo’s imagination?"

    Lol... I am definitely real, we are most assuredly different people :) And also most assuredly steadily engaged in drunken nekkidness....without either one of us being victimized.

  47. #47

    Tash (if you are real), if your account is true, the above account clearly indicates someone consenting to sex BEFORE getting drunk, when you ARE of sound mind. That's totally different than having sex with someone who is not of sound mind and assuming they "want it." As I very clearly state in post #20, consenting (while still sober) to have drunken sex (assuming no further advantage is taken or no other lines are crossed) is valid.

    NOTHING in the situation you describe would have anything to do with someone who is made to have sex while drunk and then in the morning doesn't know/understand what happened or feels violated by advantage taken of their person. Nothing you've described has any bearing on someone who reports that they had sex when they didn't want to.

    Kza, what the fuck IS your point? "[These things wouldn't happen if no one drank, but we're not telling you not to drink]...just a suggestion?" WHAT? What are you suggesting? What is your actual solid advice? It sounds a lot like you're repeating the "victims shouldn't drink" argument without having the guts to say that this is actually what you're saying.

  48. pipi long stockings
    #48

    Isn't it funny how Eo disagrees with every single article ever written on this blog, thinks Amanda is irrational and man hating, doesn't agree with the basic principles of feminism, BUT still reads every single one of Amanda's articles and comments on them religiously.

    Now that my friends, is dedication.

  49. #49

    Also, pipi, imports real or fictitious people when his point isn't being taken seriously.

  50. #50

    @Sarah...yeah, I was wondering about that too. We had another rape apologist on here a while back (he eventually gave up & withered), but when he was actually pressed for what was appropriate behavior, he spun this elaborate fantasy about women begging to be fucked by him and making their desires ridiculously clearly known. I really had to wonder (as I do in the above case)--if they actually have such clear, consenting relationships and such enthusiastically positive partners, what drives them to defend subversive and manipulative behavior in others? What do they have to gain from obfuscating (and detesting) the concept of consent?

  51. #51

    Sarah everyone knows aquaintence rape happenes.

    Sex negaitive feminists like Koss like to depict a rape epidemic, bad men waiting to victimise good women at every turn but79% pf the people in her 1 in 4 figure didnt think that they had been raped.

    Koss got that artificially inflated figure by including people who didnt feel that they had been raped and continued to date their partners as rape victims.

    Claims that drunk always means rape are circulated by poor quality agenda driven researchs like Koss. Alothough rape happens, campus rape hysteria is largly a political construct.

  52. #52

    I feel like Sarah and leftside are trying to stir up shut that doesn't exist. Can you not accept that there are male feminists? Do you have to argue bullshit points? wtf

  53. #53

    This blog is well written, relevant, and at the same time humorous. The only problem is the male hating commentaters. I can't speak for the writer but I feel like the point of this blog is gender equality. All of the entries are written from a non-objective point of view. The comments are a different story. The people who comment here seem determined to hate on males. For example from Sady Doyles twitter;

    In that time, there has already been a comment about how mean I am for not publishing personal attacks on my own website.

    I didnt say anything about personal attacks. I said she should allow more open to dissenting on her blog. Yet somehow it gets turned on me saying that she should let people attack her, on this blog my comments get twisted into saying girls shouldn't be allowed to go out and enjoy the night life...

    Stop being so militant jeeez

  54. #54

    Some of them are just heavily invested in prejudice and will go to lengths to protect their mindset.. also when people have a bogyman to blame everthing thats wrong on they dont have to take responsibility for their own lives.

    The concept that sex a woman later regrets is the same thing rape is just shifting responsibility on to someone else. Ive woken up beside someone and though "what was I thinking"? but I take responsibility for my own decision making. I think that some of these feminists are a long way off understanding the meaning of egalitarianism, blaming the nearest man or holding deep prejudices is not strength or independence, its quite the opposite.

  55. #55

    If you're going to come to a feminist website and participate in a discussion about a feminist issue with feminists, then maybe you should consider engaging with our ACTUAL argument, rather than the strawfeminist bullshit you've either heard or cooked up in your head. Guess what? You're talking to real live feminists here. If you want to know what the feminist agenda is, all you have to do is pay attention to what we're actually saying.

    "Can you not accept that there are male feminis" Of course we can. And if you've spent more than five seconds on this blog, you'd know that.

    "The concept that sex a woman later regrets is the same thing rape is just shifting responsibility on to someone els" That is NOT rape. None of us ever, even once, remotely suggested that "regretted sex" is rape. Again, engage with our ACTUAL argument: that someone forcing him/herself on a nonconsenting person is rape. Do you have a problem with this definition?

    I can't really believe you thought it would go over well to come to a feminist website and try to tell feminists what we believe (which bears no resemblance to what we ACTUALLY believe) and then proceed to tell us how wrong we are.

  56. #56

    @LSP: On many occassions I drank in order to tolerate having sex. The next day I regretted doing so. That does not mean those women or men raped me. I have never gotten so drunk that I could not recall what happened, but let us suppose I did. If I cannot recall at all what happened, how can I claim I was raped?

    Technically speaking, a drunk person can give consent, but their consent is impaired by intoxication. In other words, a person may make a decision they would not make while sober. However, a regretted decision does not constitute rape, nor does having sex with a drunk person. After all, plenty of men get drunk, have sex and later regret it or completely blacked out, yet those acts are not considered rape.

    Maybe you should take a break from expressing your seething resentment towards men and actually learn something about sexual respect, consent and decency. It would help you more as a feminist and make you a much better person.

    @Melissa: Actually, Hess suggested regretted sex was rape in her post. She stated "At best, it seems that Lampkin is warning students against having bad sex and inspiring false rape accusations—an odd set of priorities for a campus security expert to focus on, no? I have an e-mail out to Lampkin, asking if what she really meant to warn students of was 'rape.'"

  57. #57

    Toysoldier, you say "If I cannot recall what happened, how can I claim I was raped?"
    I was raped when I was 18. I don't remember a moment of it, but it haunts me everyday. I KNOW I was raped, despite the complete loss of memory of the entire night. I woke up on a bare cot in the hallway an emergency room. My clothes were ripped, there were bruises on my thighs, arms, and hips, it hurt to walk, and I was completely disoriented.
    Sure, maybe I had consensual sex that night and I just don't remember it. But I somehow doubt that as a lesbian and a virgin, I chose that night to have rough, drunken sex with a man.
    YES, I was drinking. NO, I don't remember the assault. But that does not mean what happened wasn't rape.
    When people like Pat Lampkin warn against "sex that is later deemed to have lacked consent," it makes me furious. It was not LATER deemed (by whom? some arbitrary third party?) to have lacked consent -- there was no consent in the first place. Because it was rape.

  58. #58

    Toysoldier, if you drank to tolerate having sex, why on earth were you having sex? That sounds a hell of a lot like you didn't really want to! What the hell is up with that?

    So, are you actually saying that raping a passed-out person is okay because they won't remember? Wow, you really have NO ethics!

    You claim you care about victims but really you just care about yourself. What an insufferable hypocrite.

    Again (for the bizillionth time) you are responsible for what you DO while drunk, not what is done TO you. Why is this such a difficult concept?

    A person can DO something that they regret while drunk--a person who breaks a window while drunk is responsible, because that individual did something wrong. But, this is not the same as having something done to you. If a drunk person gets punched in the face in a bar, they are not responsible because it is not okay to punch anyone, drunk or sober.

    "A person may make a decision they would not make while sober" sounds a hell of a lot like taking advantage of someone's compromised state, and again, that is NOT acceptable in any way. If you are doing something to someone that they (in sound mind) would not be okay with, you are violating their right to consent.

    Moreover, in the vast majority of cases we're not talking about someone who freely "decides" while drunk that they want to have sex. We are talking about people who trust friends or acquaintances for rides home and then that person betrays their trust and has sex with them when they are unable to resist physically and/or verbally. The next morning rape-apologists will say "Oh, you just 'regret' having sex" when the sex was not consensual in any way AT THE TIME. We're talking about people who are too disoriented to say anything or know where they are, who are taken advantage of and used sexually when they are in no condition to participate or understand, and then have no idea what happened to them later. That's not "regretting" a decision--that's being totally unable to make one in the first place.

  59. #59

    Just a question---
    If I am drunk, even if I say yes, it's rape because my ABILITY to give informed consent is impaired by alcohol.
    ----So I'm with my partner, we are both drinking, we both know that the evening will include sex, we have no 'discussion' about it, it just sort of happens naturally, and Im into it, he's into it, everyone is blissed out and happy---except feminists (not here) have told me that in this scenario, I've just been raped.
    I have 2 things to ask here--
    How is it rape? I was a willing participant. Is it rape because a third party who was not even present and does not know us SAYS it is? I call bullshit.
    Also, how is it that I am the victim and not my male partner? He was just as drunk and according to the law as I understand it, his ability to give informed consent just as impaired.
    Does this then mean any time I drink with a date then have sex with him one of us is always a victim and the other a rapist?

    Im genuinely curious on what the stand on this is here, because I see a lot of conflicting information and opinion being posted.

  60. #60

    @cmb: What you experienced demonstrates my point. You knew you were raped because of the state you were in when and where you were when you woke up, not because you lacked recollection of the event. The situation Lampkin describes does not sound like your rape. Granted, Lampkin's "lack of consent" comment can be interpreted two ways. I took it to mean the person deemed non-consensual due to a lack of recollection. Others took it to mean the authorities deemed non-consensual. Hess was right to email Lampkin for clarification. Likewise, I can understand how Lampkin's word choice could offend someone.

    @LeftSidePositive: I said nothing about responsibility, only whether a person can make a decision while intoxicated. Yes, having sex with a person in a compromised state is immoral. However, that does not mean the act is a crime, which is why casinos can offer free alcohol without any fear of facing charges when drunk customer squander their savings. Limiting the discussion to a specific scenario misrepresents the issue. The issue is about intoxicated college students choose to drink and continue to make choices while drinking and while drunk. Many of those decisions are bad decisions, but they are decisions.

  61. #61

    Toysoldier, you are such a fucking idiot. Rape is not defined by scars or bruises, it is defined by CONSENT. If cmb woke up in her own bed with no bruises but naked with semen on her legs, would you just assume everything is fine and she has no right to control her body if she can't remember anything? Is raping the retarded or comatose okay with you?

    Having sex with a person in a compromised state IS a crime. What the fuck is wrong with you that you resist that point?

    US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 109A; 2241:

    Whoever "(2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—
    (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or
    (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act;
    or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life."
    (emphasis mine)

    A person who is too drunk to remember anything is very clearly incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct.

    Fucking stupid analogy, by the way. The person in the casino is SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY, not getting robbed. Again, you are responsible for what you do while drunk, not what is done to you or what you let happen.

  62. #62

    Tasha--chances are, in a long-term relationship that you describe, standards of conduct are pretty clear. The parties have generally (but not always) reached some level of understanding about implied consent.

    Also, there is no way you would state on a survey or when asked that you "had sex when you didn't want to because of alcohol or another substance," so you wouldn't show up in any rape statistics, nor would there be any problems or disagreements between you and your boyfriend.

    Also, how drunk are you talking about? Do you mean blacked-out? Disoriented to the point you don't know what you're doing or who you're fucking? I think even the most anti-alcohol feminist would say you had to be *really* wasted for a stated, enthusiastic "yes" not to count. By "into it" do you mean that you are an active participant in the sex? What if you were blindingly drunk and someone else isolated you from that bar, let you (thoroughly wasted at this point) believe that he was your boyfriend and had sex with you in the toilet stall? Would you think that your active participation meant consent in that situation?

    Are you so wasted that you have no idea the next morning what happened? If someone wakes up find his/herself thoroughly fucked by their significant other and has no idea how it happened or why, one party can't just say "but you were drunk, honey, and we're dating, so I figured it would be fine" and expect not to have any consequences if the other party feels violated.

  63. #63

    LSP---
    The first part of your post---
    "Tasha–chances are, in a long-term relationship that you describe, standards of conduct are pretty clear. The parties have generally (but not always) reached some level of understanding about implied consent."

    And the last---
    "Are you so wasted that you have no idea the next morning what happened? If someone wakes up find his/herself thoroughly fucked by their significant other and has no idea how it happened or why, one party can’t just say “but you were drunk, honey, and we’re dating, so I figured it would be fine” and expect not to have any consequences if the other party feels violated."

    Seem to contradict each other....on one hand you say a level of understanding has been reached; but then on the other you say if you cant remember then cry foul and your man cant use the LTR as an excuse. These are the thigns that are confusing...the double speak and the ten thousand different 'scenarios' that all have a different script. If I am shitfaced drunk with my partner, and I wake up next to him feelingly thoroughly fucked, Im going to assume we had a mutually pleasurable night and maybe ask him to describe it to me if he remembers it. Im not going to scream rapist at him.

    Also, there is no way you would state on a survey or when asked that you “had sex when you didn’t want to because of alcohol or another substance,” so you wouldn’t show up in any rape statistics, nor would there be any problems or disagreements between you and your boyfriend.

    "Also, how drunk are you talking about? Do you mean blacked-out? Disoriented to the point you don’t know what you’re doing or who you’re fucking? I think even the most anti-alcohol feminist would say you had to be *really* wasted for a stated, enthusiastic “yes” not to count."
    ---You've said this before, and I meant to mention it...isn't one of the mantra's that I can change my mind at ANY stage of the game? It seems like you're saying that because I agreed to fuck before, I am bound by that agreement. For me, if Im with my partner, I tend not to change my mind :), but what if I do?

    "By “into it” do you mean that you are an active participant in the sex? What if you were blindingly drunk and someone else isolated you from that bar, let you (thoroughly wasted at this point) believe that he was your boyfriend and had sex with you in the toilet stall? Would you think that your active participation meant consent in that situation?"

    Well no, because my implied consent was for fucking my boyfriend not just for fucking

    ****BTW....I've also posted as "Tash", just to clarify, this IP and that IP are different (work vs home comp) but we are the same people..sorry for the confusion

  64. #64

    **I meant "Tasha" lol

  65. #65

    Tash, that's why the first sentence said "generally (but not always)" and then the next part you quoted was an explanation of that very important parenthetical.

    And YOU are going to be okay with having drunk sex with your partner. That's fine, that's your right (it's your right to decide you yourself can be fucked while drunk, he also has to decide if he's so inclined that it's okay for him to be fucked while drunk). But, not EVERYONE is okay with having drunk sex with their partner so it's important not to assume things about someone else's body and therefore it's important to have SOME level of clarity. This can be as simple as "Hey Babe, let's go get wasted and get it on!" if that's mutually agreeable. If it's okay for the two of you, you can communicate your consent to each other and be fruitful and multiply for all I care, but that level of consent does NOT apply to any wasted girl found in any bar.

    As for stages of agreement--yes, you do get to change your mind at any time. If, for whatever reason, you get off on being fucked while unconscious (a rather strange desire in my opinion, but who am I to judge?!) you can give your boyfriend permission (WHEN YOU'RE SOBER) to do you when your shitfaced, and you can place whatever limits on him you'd like. In this situation, you would be voluntarily giving up your ability (strictly speaking, just your ability, NOT your right, but the distinction is purely academic here) to say stop at any time, if for whatever reason that turns you on. The important thing is that YOU decided this about YOUR body, he's not making assumptions based on the ease of overcoming your resistance. Now, if something went wrong and you were hurt the next morning, there may be some issues as to whether or not he respected your limits, or he may have done a fully appropriate job of being a surrogate for your intent but the two of you just need to figure out how to indulge this hypothetical kink safely.

    This is a really important point that you said:

    "Well no, because my implied consent was for fucking my boyfriend not just for fucking"

    THIS IS WHY DRUNK "CONSENT" IS NOT VALID. Lots of these "regretted sex" propagandists would say that, "well, you consented while drunk, and now you just regret what you did but you weren't raped cause it was your own fault for being so drunk." In fact, this scenario IS RAPE because you were not able to understand what was going on or consent. The consent you gave your boyfriend (not the rapist impostor) was when you were of sound mind BEFORE the sex and before the drinking, not during the crazed sex, when he could have been Dick Cheney for all you knew.

  66. #66

    LSP___

    "This is a really important point that you said:

    “Well no, because my implied consent was for fucking my boyfriend not just for fucking”

    THIS IS WHY DRUNK “CONSENT” IS NOT VALID. Lots of these “regretted sex” propagandists would say that, “well, you consented while drunk, and now you just regret what you did but you weren’t raped cause it was your own fault for being so drunk.” In fact, this scenario IS RAPE because you were not able to understand what was going on or consent. The consent you gave your boyfriend (not the rapist impostor) was when you were of sound mind BEFORE the sex and before the drinking, not during the crazed sex, when he could have been Dick Cheney for all you knew."

    But what you're describing are two *totally* different scenarios. In the first, we are talking about implicit consent given to other half of an ltr (or at least established relationship). In the second, we are talking about a predatory rape.
    I think the confusion sets in and the lines get blurred when we have a woman who has been drinking at a party meets up with a man who has been drinking at a party (I don't mean blind drunk, just drunk, lowered inhibitions etc)...they talk, flirt, drink some more, flirt some more, and go back to her place and fuck. The next morning, she wakes up and thinks "Bloody hell, wtf have I done?" and sets about making excuses to blast his ass out of her bed.
    In this 3rd scenario, the regretted sex scenario, I don't see rape, I see an "oh shit" moment. But the too drunk to give consent people see rape...even if the woman in the scenario doesn't feel she was raped. This is the one that I think holds the most potential to be a huge mess. The way things are, if I wake up next to a man I'd probably not have slept with while sober, I can very possibly just say "Oh, well I wouldn't have done that ordinarily, and I was drinking, so he obviously took advantage of me, so I was raped" This I have a problem with. I have had that experience, I have also had the experience of being raped, the two, for me, do no tfeel even remotely the same.

  67. #67

    @Tash---I think the scenario you describe is only a problem if you define rape based on how the woman feels about the sex afterward. But that is not how rape is defined--it's not about whether you did something while drinking that you would not have done sober, it's about whether or not you were (a) capable of consenting to anything and (b) did consent at the time you had sex. If you were and you did, you weren't raped, and your feelings about it afterward don't change what happened. If you weren't or you didn't, then you were raped, whether or not you apply that label yourself. Rape is not defined by the feelings of the victim.

    A person can drink and still be able to consent to something--obviously, there are different levels of intoxication. You can drink enough to lower your inhibitions without losing your capacity to consent. But a person who is unable to speak or walk properly, or stand up on their own, or is closer to unconscious than conscious, or is vomiting, or is blackout drunk--that person is probably not able to consent. Is there a fine line when it might be hard to tell whether or not a person is capable of consenting? Possibly--in which case, the best bet is to not have sex with that person. If you can't tell if someone is sober enough to say yes, they probably aren't.

  68. #68

    Just saw your posting. I have had the pleasure (truly a displeasure) to meet face to face with VP Lampkin to discuss my daughter's 2004 rape at UVA. Lampkin is an archaic fool that should be relieved of her duties. At the time she was comparing the Amy Adkins incident to my daughter's rape and told me that Amy would have to live with her trauma for the rest of her life (someone wrote the N word on her card with Honey) but my daughter could "get over" the rape and move on. So I asked her, "Do you think it was more traumatic to find your car with a slur on it than to be pinned down and forcibly raped?" (I was a little more graphic than that, but I'll spare the reader here) and she responded yes.

    Please don't interpret that what happened to Amy is not traumatic - it was. But it was not a crime I would equate to rape. And I was a parent in the office trying to talk to the VP about rape. And she blew me off.

    Lampkin thinks rape is synonymous with regrettable sex. Rape is not sex. Rape is about power. And until the University recognizes rape to be a crime, all women are targets for violence.

    For more information, see my website.

Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.
...