* The Daily Beast's Tricia Romano declares Old Spice Guy Isaiah Mustafa a "post-racial commercial genius." Commercial genius? Yes, ladies. Post-racial? Not so much, says Georgetown Girl.

* Liz at THE LINE writes about the problematic social imbalance between fraternities and sororities:

The social structure that we lock into as a sorority is, for lack of a better word, stupid. Here’s how it works: sororities are dry and fraternities are not. This means there is absolutely NO alcohol allowed in the sorority houses. If the fraternities host all the parties, decide who gets to come, and provide all the alcohol, who holds all the power? Frat parties can be fun –my friends and I are even known to take our costumes to the next level. But there is a problem with the structure because it promotes an unbalanced social scene.

* Help Holla Back DC! re-brand itself.

* Milk Nymphos star Lorelei Lee talks to Broadsheet about the importance of keeping her real name private:

While most of the fan mail that I receive is positive, I've also received a number of e-mails that have been pretty frightening. For my own safety, my professional name is the one that I use in every public context. There was never a need for my legal name to be revealed in open court. The prosecutor's claim that using my professional name would give me an "air of legitimacy" was incredibly insulting.

* Via GLAA Forum, The Nation reports on queer youth in juvenile detention facilities.

* From THE LINE: "I have noticed a disturbing trend among women: we do not like to admit we have sex."

* SAFER Campus on alcohol and consent:

there is so much defensiveness about alcohol and consent, as though it’s a really really complicated thing. And ya know, I think that for people who are aren’t raised to think about sex as a shared experience in which two people are actively, positively participating, it can actually seem that complicated. But the reality is that it doesn’t have to be. Having sex with an incapacitated person should be widely understand as rape. Two drunk people having sex should be aware enough of the other person to have a sense of what is or isn’t consent because they’ve been raised to respect other people, and it’s second nature to them to check and make sure their partner is involved. I understand this is reductive; that it’s real nice to think about this sexual utopia where things are simple, but perhaps not a realistic picture of how things are now so what’s the point. But I think that we overcomplicate consent; people say that defining consent is making something natural more complicated than it needs to be, but really isn’t something only complicated when it’s unclear? Wouldn’t the actions themselves be less complicated if we had the complicated conversations beforehand? I dunno. I long for the day when this can be that simple.

* Tony Perkins is concerned that Amtrak is using taxpayer money for "recruiting homosexual passengers." Gays on trains? Is nothing sacred?

* Adult Video News reporter Mark Kernes registers his displeasure with the court on its handling of the John Stagliano obscenity case. At issue: The judge's decision to keep jury selection private, presumably because of the porn-y nature of the line of questioning:

As a journalist, I have covered three previous federal obscenity cases—U.S. v. Little (Middle Dist. of Fla.), U.S. v. JM Productions (Dist. of Ariz.) and U.S. v. Isaacs (Central Dist. of Calif.)—and in all of those cases, reporters were permitted to attend all phases of the trial, including the jury selection, during which the jurors were all referred to by their juror number in order to protect their privacy.

However, in the Stagliano case, Judge Leon closed the courtroom while the attorneys were discussing the written jury questionnaires and questioning individual prospective jurors based on their answers in the questionnaires. It has been my experience that prospective jurors' answers to counsels' questions can be very informative of their backgrounds and mindsets, and as a reporter, I believe I should have had access to that information as background for my coverage of the trial, and that Judge Leon's order amounted to a violation of the First Amendment's "freedom of the press" clause.

Tomorrow, the Washington, D.C. National Organization for Women will host a fundraiser at Madam's Organ in order to benefit the D.C. Rape Crisis Center. The simple activity of consuming alcohol at a bar is so often used to blame rape survivors for their assaults, so it's nice to see a bar invested in the effort to actually help victims. The happy hour will run from 5 to 9 p.m. at 2461 18th St. NW.

* Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown welcomes summer, and all the irrational fighting it brings. Kicking off fighting season for Doyle: Tequila-fueled feminist infighting!

Oh, the shouting! Oh, the insults! Oh, the many and various accusations, most of which, in recollection, make no sense whatsoever! I said she had internalized misogyny and cared more about protecting liberal party lines than about human decency; she said I had internalized classism and behaved “like a character from the movie Mean Girls;” I made fun of her for the Mean Girls reference, which didn’t help, and at some point, long after the conversation had transcended the bounds of sense-making, she said that she wanted to talk about how terrible I was with my boyfriend, at which point I got out my phone and started yelling, “Let's call him! Let's call everyone I've ever fucked! Let's ask them how much I hate poor people!” And I would have called them, too (“So, we dated from December of 2007 to February of 2010. During that time, to the best of your recollection, how many hobos did I set on fire for kicks? WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S FOUR IN THE MORNING. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE DID NOT WORK OUT”) but then I started crying, and the whole thing just went completely off the rails.

As I stood up and walked outside for a cigarette, at this point visibly sobbing, she called out, “I look forward to reading about this on wherever it is you blog.”

Fun fact: I witnessed this summer-opening fight! I was slumped into a booth of some swanky Brooklyn lounge thingy, drinking my millionth beer and attempting to keep it together while some guy explained scuba diving to me. Summer is here!

* Zack Rosen of The New Gay hates lube, and unrealistic, lube-less television fucking:

In season 6 of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, which I am currently watching, a lot of the previously high school-aged characters have a lot of very spontaneous sex. Two people are talking or fighting or waiting for the bus when suddenly, Bam! They are fucking. The show can’t be too explicit about it, so they just show undulating bodies from the waist up, fully clothed, standing against a wall or lying on a table, miming all the faces and sounds of intercourse. As a gay man, I can’t get over this. It just seems so easy. You have the interest in having sex and then you do it. Just like that. No muss, no fuss, no lube.If Buffy wanted to show a realistic depiction of, say, Angel and Spike fucking it would not be so easy. They would fight for a while and then suddenly Angel’s legs would be locked around Spike’s waist while they kissed. Spike would pantomime trying to slip his dry dick in, and then Angel would yell “OW! Spike, are you fucking kidding me?” He might even turn into Angelus from pain and frustration while Spike went tearing around his crypt, looking for a 6 month-old packet of lube that he thinks he picked up at a gay bar and left in the pocket of his other black t-shirt. Angel/Angelus would look at his watch for a while and wonder what kind of sodomite vampire doesn’t keep lube around, for chrissakes. Spike would suggest things like conditioner or spit, and then give up and resign himself to a mutual undead hand job. (And by the way, you can all thank me for not casting Giles and The Master in the above imagination exercise.)

* Megan Fox won't be returning for the third Transformers movie, presumably because notorious asshole director Michael Bay treated her like a huge asshole. Women & Hollywood's take:

Her side told The Wrap that said she walked away because director Michael Bay was “verbally abusive” and had just had enough of his crap.  She’s also talked about how he made her tan so much for the film that’s she’s nervous about getting skin cancer.  Bay is known to be an ass to his female actors, and the article goes on to say that another of the female actors in Transformers 2 Isabel Lucas wouldn’t do publicity for the film because of Bay.But he gets away with this shit over and over because no one has the power—or the guts—to hold this man accountable.  He could never get away acting like this in an office environment.  It’s also probably true that the if the executives who hire Bay and tolerate his behavior acted like he did, they would be in court up on charges.

Photo via The Library of Congress.

In the world of sexual assault prevention, the work of University of Massachusetts psychologist David Lisak has gained some serious traction. Lisak has spent the past 20 years studying men who commit acquaintance rapes. In the past year, that work has been dissected by feminist blogs, employed in an investigative report from the Center for Public Integrity, and integrated into the policies of campus safety nonprofit Security On Campus. Being a bit of a fan girl myself, I was happy to discover more from Liak: This CBS news interview in which the researcher talks about the ways in which non-stranger rapists operate, how they're ignored by the criminal justice system, and why these men tell him about the rapes they've committed. Transcript after the jump.

The most common rape is a non-stranger assault where the victim is picked out by the offender at a party, at a bar. The degree of acquaintance between them is usually very, very incidental. It is really just the perpetrator finding a particular individual who they're going to target. And so if they're in a bar, if you've got a predator in a bar, he's not going to look for the most sober individual in the bar. He's going to look for the most intoxicated individual. In fact, he'll look for the individual who is not only intoxicated but seems to be doing outrageous things.

Somehow all we can do is take the statement from the victim, take the statement from the alleged perpetrator, and then throw up our hands because they're saying conflicting things and we don't know how to resolve this. That's not how we investigate other crimes. You know, in almost any other circumstance, if we have an alleged perpetrator, we begin an investigation. And it doesn't end with asking the alleged perpetrator whether or not they did the crime. Rather than taking the report and investigating the alleged offender—which is what we do in virtually every other crime and certainly in violent crimes, that is our approach—and yet somehow that's not the approach that's taken in non-stranger cases.

The reason that this is such a common part of the scenario—the non-stranger assault—is that we know, and I've interviewed these rapists for 20 years and they have told me explicitly, they are predators. They go after victims in those kinds of circumstances, and they look for potential victims who are already somwhat vulnerable. They're going to get her so intoxicated that she might have blackouts, she may be unconscious, she is much more susceptible to all the manipulations you would use. So for example, you get her completely intoxicated and then you say, "You know what? You really shouldn't drive. I'll drive you home." And then, presto! The rapist has her in his car, and the assault can happen whether in his car, his apartment, or wherever, but she's under his control. And that scenario has been described to me so many different times by these non-stranger rapists.

Predators look for vulnerable people, and they prey on vulnerable peope, and if as a criminal justice system, we're going to essentially turn away from any victim who is drinking or any victim who is in some way vulnearble, we're essentially giving a free pass to sexual predators. A lot of these men, especially the serial rapists, are very very narcissistic, there is nothing they enjoy more than to sit down in a room with a guy like me and impress me with all their sexual exploits. And that's how they view them.

It's extremely important to unpack all the myths and excuses provided around sexual assault together. When we detail every way that rape apologists shift their justifications to fit the circumstances of each crime, we reveal that these excuses really aren't about what assault victims are wearing, or who they're dating, or what crimes they've committed in the past—it's about the people in our society who just don't care to stop sexual assault. When you add up all the excuses, you'd be hard pressed to find an instance of sexual violence that can't be explained away through the cultural script:

Here are Denim Day's 12 examples of ways we discount sexual assaults:

#1 SHE WAS WEARING TIGHT JEANS:

In 1999, the Italian High Court overturned a rape conviction because the victim was wearing tight jeans at the time of the assault. The justices stated that the victim must have helped her attacker remove her jeans, from which they inferred consent. People all around the world were outraged. Wearing jeans on this anniversary became an international symbol of protest against erroneous and destructive attitudes abotu sexual violence.

#2 SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT:

It is often believed that sexy or suggestive clothing invites wanted male attention, positive or negative. Regardless, wearing revealing clothing does not invite sexual assault. In fact, women and girls have been raped in everything from jeans to business suits to pajamas. This belief reinforces the myth that women and girls invite assault by their clothing choices and shifts the blame for the crime to the victim and away from the perpetrator, where it belongs.

#3 SHE WAS FLIRTING ONLINE:

Teenagers and children have increasingly become targets for predators both online and via mobile devices. Predators today will use social networking sites to contact youth and convince them that the "stranger" is a "friend."This connection increases the child / teen's trust in them and interest in sexual relations. Learning about the dangers of internet use and speaking about them openly can help minimize the risks from those who wish to abuse.

#4 SHE WAS HIS STEADY GIRLFRIEND:

One of the most common misconceptions is that most rapes are committed by strangers. In reality, more than 75% of sexual assaults are committed by someone the survivor knew and trusted—such as a teacher, co-worker, relative, friend, or even their steady girlfriend or boyfriend. Just because someone has consented to a sexual act in the past does not give someone the right to assume consent and force or coerce sexual contact.

#5 SHE WAS DRUNK AND PARTYING:

It is commonly believed that because a woman is drinking she somehow invites rape. In most states, it is against the law to have sex with someone who is unable to give legal consent. Coercing or forcing sex without consent is considered rape/sexual violence. If convicted of this crime, a perpetrator would likely have to register as a sex offender.

#6 HE HAD IT COMING:

Male anger and violence is afflicted upon other men and not just women. Rape is a violent act of power and control that damages the victim—male or female. The socialization of men creates immense challenges for them to disclose any type of sexual victimization.

#7 SHE WAS HIS WIFE:

Spousal rape or marital rape is often unreported and overlooked.There is a widely held view that a woman surrenders consent at the time of marriage, and is responsible for satisfying all her husband's needs and desires in order to be a good wife. The law has been slow to criminalize marital rape, but it is now recognized as a crime in all 50 states.

#8 I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING FOR HER:

Sexual assault is a function of power and control. Frail older persons are often dependent on others for care and can be extremely vulnerable to sexual mistreatment. 96% of sexual abuse of elder persons is committed by a family member or a caretaker. 86% of elder sexual assault victims are women.

#9 THE INTENSITY GOT TO HIM:

Today, there are more women serving in the military than ever before.  However, women soldiers who signed up to defend their countries have instead had to defend themselves from assault and rape by their own fellow soldiers and in some cases their commanding officers. The phenomena is not only unique to women, but inclusive of men as well. Military sexual violence has occurred during training, times of peace, and times of war.

#10 SHE HAS SEX FOR MONEY:

Because a sex worker exchanges a sex act for money does not mean that they cannot be raped or deserve to be sexually violated. Someone's choices in profession, lifestyle, and appearance do not give anyone the right to rape, assault, or otherwise hurt them.

#11 SHE CANNOT HEAR, TALK, OR REPORT:

According to a survey by the U.S. Department of Justice, rates of rape and sexual assault among persons who are deaf or disabled are more than twice that of the general population. Persons who are deaf or have a disibility are also more likely to experience repeated sexual assaults throughout their lifetimes. The perception of vulnerability or inability to report does not give someone the right to force or coerce sexual contact.

#12 RAPE IS NOT PART OF THE SENTENCE:

Every year, more than 100,000 U.S. male and female inmates are sexually abused by other inmates or correctional staff. More often than not, the perpetrators are correctional staff, whose very job it is to keep prisoners safe. When the government removes someone's liberty, it takes on an absolute responsibility to protect that person's safety. Rape is not part of the penalty. In the aftermath, most prisoner rape survivors are forced to suffer in silence, too fearful of retaliation and further abuse ever to file a formal report. Rape is an abomination, whether it occurs in jail or in the community.

See a pattern emerging here? No, me neither. We excuse rape if she's a "bad girl." We excuse rape if she's a "good wife." We excuse rape if her clothes are too difficult to remove. We excuse rape if her clothes are too easy to remove. We excuse rape if he's a man. We excuse rape if the victim is serving time. We excuse rape if the victim is serving our country. In short, we excuse rape. And Denim Day's 12 excuses are hardly an exhaustive list: Off the top of my head, I'd also add "She was transgender" and "We must protect the reputation of the Catholic Church." I imagine a list of all the sexual assault scenarios that are never discounted, disbelieved, or brushed under the rug would be much, much shorter.

Yesterday, the controversy unfolding over Alex Knepper's sexual assault opinion columns in the American University Eagle hit National Public Radio. The dialogue between Knepper, AU LGBT and feminist activist K. Travis Ballie, and host Michel Martin touched on Knepper's homosexuality, the politics of sex at drunken fraternity parties, and one important policy point—the lack of a victim's advocate on the AU campus. At one point, Martin asks Knepper, "Do you find it at all problematic, Alex, that you don't date women and yet you're judging their conduct in a situation that you are unlikely to be in?" An odd question for a program that's invited two gay men on to debate the topic, no?

In response to the story about the Howard University student who was denied a rape kit after being allegedly drugged and sexually assaulted at a house party, some troll decided that this particular rape doesn't matter because the victim was wearing stiletto heels on the night of her assault:

You know god-damned well a woman today on a weekend night looks and acts like a prostitute. (tramp stamp/tongue ring/stiletto heels . . . This article is about a woman who wasn't even sure if she was raped. She thinks she was, but she doesn't know. The Doctor, who has important things to do, made the decision to turn this woman away. That is his prerogative. I don't blame him. Imagine if you will, a young woman coming into your clinic, drunk to the gills, stiletto heels, a pound of make-up, dressed like a prostitute, and expecting a rape kit. Too bad! . . . If she is shitfaced and wearing a slut uniform (tramp stamp/tongue ring/nipple piercing/one pound of make-up/stiletto heels) then whatever happens to her is her responsibility.

Well, there are a lot of problems with this statement, but let's focus on one: The victim in this case was almost certainly not wearing stiletto heels that night. Depressingly, that's a matter of public record now, because defense attorneys in the case found it relevant to ask what was on this woman's feet. From a deposition taken of Hannah's friend, Amanda, who was present at the party (and its aftermath):

Attorney: Do you remember what [Hannah] was wearing at the party?

Amanda: No. No, not at all.

Attorney: Do you remember if she was wearing high heels?

Amanda: It was probably one of the times—I would say she was probably wearing boots.

This is the general script for rape apologists:

1. Isolate a detail about the rape victim—it could be her appearance, her attire, her level of intoxication, her upbringing, her sexual history, or her presence at a particular party—really, anything will do.

2. Decide that that particular detail designates her as a less-than-perfect rape victim.

3. Assert that this rape doesn't matter because the victim was asking for it / wasn't taking charge of her own safety / is lying / doesn't deserve any of the limited amount of the sympathy we extend to "real" victims of rape.

This troll has reversed that script. First, decide that you don't care about the rape. Then, assume that the rape victim must conform to one of the accepted cultural markers of an "imperfect" victim (short skirt / stiletto heels / sexually promiscuous / had been drinking / has a piercing / in a bad neighborhood / has a tattoo—on the lower back! / wears make-up / and good luck if you're transgender).

Thomas MacAulay Millar, commenting on the story, wrote:

What is clear from this thread and others is that there is a very real pro-rape lobby. They talk the language of disbelieving, but when push comes to shove . . . these trolls really do understand that women get raped when they are most vulnerable—but they are in favor of it. Whether they are actually men who hate women, or are women who hate other women, we can't know. There are a number of possible motives for these sentiments. But they're not really in denial—that's a facade they drop when pressed. In fact, they're just pro-rape. They think it ought to be open-season for predators on certain women in certain circumstances.

What this troll demonstrates is that those cultural markers—the circumstances that make rape A-OK for rape apologists—are arbitrary, and they can always be shifted to excuse more rapes.  Even if the rape victim is a 15-year-old girl raped again and again on her own school campus during the homecoming dance, there is always something apologists can use against her. And even if all women everywhere cover up, stay sober, don't go to parties, always wear pants, remain un-pierced and un-inked, don't wear makeup, always wear flats, never leave the house without a man, and stop living our lives freely, the rape apologists will find a new set of criteria that will make us responsible for our rapes anyway. The shifting of blame will continue as long as rape continues. It's not that rape apologists despise women who were stiletto heels. It's that they despise women. That's what needs to change. Not our shoes.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Last year, a feminine hygiene company found that 50 percent of British women surveyed prefer having sex while drunk. And 6 percent of respondents have exclusively had sex while drunk. The armchair psychoanalysis employed to interpret these results didn't determine whether women actually enjoy drunk sex better than sober sex, or whether getting drunk simply helped to facilitate the sex even happening. Do women get drunk to have better sex or to feel better about having sex? Enter Pop singer Kiely Williams, who is leading the charge in heralding the erotic benefits of blackout intercourse.

A music video has emerged for Williams' ode to extremely memorable sex you won't remember the next day, "Spectacular." (Thanks to commenter KiaJD for the tip). Behold, the eroticization of the drunk girl!

In "Spectacular," Williams sings:

Last I remember I was face down
Ass up, clothes off, broke off, dozed off
Even though I’m not sure of his name
He could get it again if he wanted
Cause the sex was spectacular
The sex was spectacular
The sex was spectacular
The sex was spectacular

In the video, Williams is ass up, clothes off and very much awake as she performs a sexy and fully enthusiastic dance to lyrics about her being asleep while a man she doesn't know has (spectacular) sex with her. In the dance sequence, Williams expresses how being a passed-out recipient of "sex" made her feel—she felt sexy, confident, daring, and in control. Our drunk-sex researchers chalked up a woman's preference for intoxicated sex to body issues. Williams, apparently, just thinks it's hot.

Like it or not, the image of the "drunk girl" occupies an interesting space in popular culture. She's part wild girl, a sexually adventurous young woman in a shy girl's body, who just needs a bit of liquid courage to silence her inhibitions and access her sexual side. She's part Asking For It, an easy target for sexual coercion and rape who deserves to be punished for letting her guard down. Now, she's a fetish, too. The soft-core exhibitionism of Girls Gone Wild has made way for a genre of porn, targeted at heterosexual men, which mines the erotic potential of incoherently drunk women who are alternately sexually aggressive or asleep (Google "drunk sex" to find out what I'm talking about). There is also, of course, the works of Jamie Foxx.

Given Williams' girl power group audience, it looks like the sexiness of passing out is now being sold directly to women, and not to their sex partners. To me, "Spectacular" is the ultimate achievement in projecting a man's desire onto a woman's sexuality. Williams' "spectacular" sex is so centered on her partner's pleasure that she doesn't even inconvenience him by staying awake for it—and when she wakes up, she reassures him that it was the best sex she's ever had. Then again, I suppose Girls Gone Wild set the bar pretty low when it convinced drunk women to provide masturbatory material for thousands of subscribers in exchange for a free hat.

In 2008, Lady Gaga dropped her first single, "Just Dance," an ode to dancing while extremely wasted. In the song, Gaga details her level of intoxication: She's lost her keys, she's lost her phone, she can't see straight, she's forgotten the name of the club she's in, and she can't figure out why her shirt is turned inside out. Still, everything is "gonna be okay"—until Colby O'Donis enters the scene and announces that he intends on doing more than just dancing with Gaga that night. "I'm gonna hit it, I'm gonna hit it and flex and do it until tomorrow," he says. "There's no reason at all why you can't leave here with me." Well, I can think of one.

The bouncy club track doesn't address the disconnect between Gaga's drunken intentions—just dancing—and those of O'Donnis—hitting it. In the recently released track "Monster," that drunken interaction takes a sinister turn, and Gaga finally addresses the negative space left by "Just Dance."

[youtube:v=2Abk1jAONjw]

"I asked my girlfriend if she'd seen you round before," Gaga sings in "Monster." "She mumbled something while we got down on the floor baby / We might've fucked not really sure, don't quite recall / But something tells me that I've seen him, yeah." If the friend's lack of clarity on her fucking history with this guy isn't enough of a red flag, wait for the chorus, where Gaga eliminates all the ambivalence of "Just Dance": "That boy is a monster."

Later in the song, Gaga makes a direct reference to her first single as the club monster turns into a "monster in my bed": "I wanna Just Dance / But he took me home instead / Uh oh, there was a monster in my bed / We french kissed on a subway train / He tore my clothes right off / He ate my heart then he ate my brain." In the background, the robotic voice of the "monster" provides the stalker's perspective: "I love that girl, wanna talk to her, she's hot as hell."

Reader Zoe, who sent in "Monster" as an example of an anti-Date Rape Anthem, says that the song works as a necessary footnote to "the trend . . . of women singing about how awesome it is to get disorientingly drunk, and then going Ke$ha and saying you can slap the guys away when they try to 'touch your junk':"

[youtube:v=iP6XpLQM2Cs]

"I don't think the song is supposed to be a 'lesson' to women about getting drunk," Zoe adds. "It's just connecting those dots, and then condemning the dude as a monster. Hooray!" Like Zoe, I'm glad that pop music has a figure like Lady Gaga, who can convincingly defend the harmless entertainment of drinking in the club, and then release an equally compelling dance track condemning the people who want to deny women that experience—rapists.

The health center at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada is currently outfitted with this anti-drinking PSA that warns that excessive drinking can get you raped. Funny how that just happens. Can't we get a "You can also rape someone"? Thanks to Waterloo student BuChanda for the tip.

Murray lists three "extremely stupid" things she did on the night she was raped: (1) She "had been drinking in the pub" and was "not used to alcohol"; (2) she "went with a group of friends to the home of a much older man"; and (3) she was wearing "what my mother described, disapprovingly, as an extended belt, but what to me was just a fashionable mini skirt."

Each of Murray's "mistakes" fall under the category of normal teenage behavior. But unlike Murray's first two sources of self-blame, wearing a short skirt has little actual connection to a person's personal safety—miniskirts are an entirely socially constructed vulnerability. So let's focus for a minute on that extended belt Murray was sporting.

A good percentage of the study's victim-blamers think Murray should take responsibility for what happened after she stepped out in the mini: Her friends drifted away, the older man began "violently molesting" her, and then, when she gave him a firm "no" and attempted to fight him off, he punched her in the face and raped her. According to the Daily Mail, 24 percent of women aged 18 to 24 believe that "wearing a short skirt, accepting a drink or having a conversation with the rapist made victims partly responsible [for their rapes]."

The study doesn't detail why these people believe that wearing a miniskirt makes you responsible for your own rape. (For those who do hold this belief, feel free to amuse me with your explanations). Murray floats one theory: When Murray's rapist punched her in the face and then raped her, it was just a natural response to Murray's own subliminal messages.

"When a woman says no, she means no. And that's true, even if her clothes are saying the opposite," Murray writes, as if a piece of clothing could provide consent for any sex act with any person. "I believe we all have a right to wear whatever we choose, whether it's a mini skirt or a burka. Sadly, I'm not sure that the highly sexualised society in which we live offers young people much of a choice. Children are lured into 'sexy gear' before they're old enough to be trusted to take a bus on their own. . . . Is it a surprise that in such a society assumptions are made about a woman's availability?"

Under Murray's theory, wearing a short skirt signals that a woman is sexually available to anyone who happens to see her wearing the short skirt. The social cue provided by this inanimate object is to be trusted beyond a woman's actual words ("no") or actions (desperate attempts at escape). Furthermore, this sartorial secret code (short skirt = down to fuck anyone) is accepted not only by rapists, but by society at large—including rape victims, police officers, and jurors. And what if a woman who does not want to have sex with any and all bystanders decides to put on a short skirt? Her punishment for breaking the code is getting punched in the face and raped.

So, how do we combat this absurd belief that short hemlines carry the power to override a woman's right to consent to sex? Ridiculously, Murray suggests that the way to cut down on short-skirt-related-rapes is to militantly reinforce the false connection between miniskirts and automatic sexual availability. Murray notes that many, many people who wear short skirts—including little girls heading off to school—are not dressing with any intent to provide preemptive consent to sex. Instead of embracing this as a positive sign, Murray's solution is to force younger generations who do not associate short skirts with a get-out-of-rape-free card to re-code their clothing choices along the victim-blaming spectrum. "If I had a daughter I would be telling her to . . . be aware of the signals she may be giving out that may be read as a licence to take liberties," she writes. "It's not an ideal world, but it is the real world."

Tellingly, Murray doesn't bother to address what sort of anti-rape advice she'd be dishing if she had a son. The next generation of potential rapists will have to receive their social cues by eavesdropping on the advice we're providing to the next generation of potential victims. This is what they're hearing: If she's wearing a short skirt, it's not your fault when you rape her.

The battle for ideological dominance in our nation’s capital’s collegiate sex columns continues. Are our local campus columnists on the forefront of radical sex writing, or are they bringing back the good-old-days of referring to all former sex partners as  "trash"?

This week: How to "recycle" last week's "human trash," in the bedroom; how getting waaaaaasted will help you get into her pants; why you should never approach the person you're fucking in public.

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY:

Sex Tip: Georgetown Hoya relationship columnist Colleen Leahey goes green this week by applying the three R's to drunken GW hook-ups. In short: Your previous sex partners are "trash." Having sex with a casual hook-up twice means you're "recycling." "Human recycling is rather different from rocking your older sibling’s hand-me-downs," Leahey writes. "It typically involves alcohol, bad judgment and a late-night phone call. However, it happens on college campuses—all the time. So, is there some sort of benefit to this practice, or should an old hook-up be thrown in the trash, never to be touched again?"

Life Lesson: Sex makes everybody feel worthless. "Next time you see your random hook-up out, think about the repercussions of what you’re about to do," Leahey writes. "Weigh the pros and cons of your situation; if it seems worth it, then feel free to recycle one more time. But do remember, you could wake up the next morning feeling like a piece of trash yourself."

Progressive Meter: Even environmentalists are vulnerable to the conservative idea that having sex destroys every boy and girl's precious reserve of purity. ZERO.

—

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND:

Sex Tip: Seal the deal while she's drunk. UMD Diamondback advice columnist Esti Frischling returns from winter break to dole out advice on how to hook up with the girl you had your eye on last semester. Whatever you do, make sure she's not sober: "You didn’t man up and have your way with her when you had the chance, and now you’re just a loser with some number in your phone," Frischling writes. "The next time this happens, you have to capitalize on her tipsy advances."

Life Lesson: COLLLLEEEEGGGGGE! "I wouldn’t go straight to the sober, daytime date just yet. That’s a serious recipe for disaster. . .  you might not be drunk at that time during the day, meaning you’ll be less confident and she’ll be less attractive," Frischling writes. "I think you should meet her where you’re both most comfortable: drunk at a bar. You also don’t want to be stuck alone with her when everything goes to shit, you realize you have nothing to talk about, and you’re both terrible dancers."

Progressive Meter: Buhh. DRUNK.

—

HOWARD UNIVERSITY:

Sex Tip: This time in the Howard University Hilltop's "He Said . . . She Said" column, the He and She team up to warn undergrads against becoming somebody's "boo." According to the Hilltop, "boo" really stands for "Boy Other Option" or "Broad Other Option," depending upon the gender of the "side jawn" in question. How to be a good boo: "Don’t spend all your money, don’t ask a bunch of questions, don’t expect to meet their friends, don’t go physically farther than your emotions will allow, and never try to come up to them when they’re with another person."

Life Lesson: Boos can graduate to boyfriends and girlfriends—if they know their role. "We’re young and many of us have lots of options to choose from when it comes to being in a relationship—especially the guys on campus—so I can’t blame them for testing the waters before jumping into commitment," they write. "But the key to being a good boyfriend/girlfriend is first being a good B.O.O. Play by the rules folks, and you will win."

Progressive Meter: Some aspects of boo behavior show a respect for your sex partner's autonomy—a willingness to allow some physical and emotional distance "before jumping into commitment." Other characteristics of the boo appear to be an entrée into an abusive relationship. Never try to come up to them when they're with another person! THREE.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Date Rape Anthem: The parade of female-sung Date Rape Jams continues. Kiely Williams' "Spectacular," a song about getting wasted, passing out, and having the most incredible sex of your life!

Relevant Lyrics:

Last I remember I was face down
Ass up, clothes off, broke off, dozed off
Even though I’m not sure of his name
He could get it again if he wanted
Cause the sex was spectacular
The sex was spectacular
The sex was spectacular
The sex was spectacular

Why It's So Rapey: Although Williams insists—several times—that the sex was "spectacular," she also reiterates that she doesn't remember the damn thing. "What was I drinking, I can’t believe I blacked out," she purrs, before getting specific on the sweeping memory loss: "I hope he used a rubber, or I'm a be in trouble, problem is I don't remember, except for (unintelligible)."

From time to time, commenters on this blog will pose the following burning question about consent: So, what if your sex partner was too drunk to consent to sex—she was ass up, clothes off, broke off, dozed off, and blacked out. But what if—what if—when she wakes up the next day, she's totally pumped about what she can't remember happened the night before? [See: The controversy over broke off, dozed off consensual sex at American University last year].

What if, indeed? Well, OK: If the lady in question is heading into the recording studio to sing the praises of the stallion who spectacularly sexed her when she was passed out, that stallion is probably in the clear as far as his legal situation is concerned.

That doesn't put him in the clear as far as my feminist shaming is concerned, however. I understand that the exact moment a potential sex partner becomes too drunk to fuck is not always obvious. But surely, dozing off in the middle of sex is a good indication that you should stop, no matter how spectacular it was when she was actually coherent. You've got to have meaningful consent before and throughout the act, no matter how she feels about it the next day. If your sex partner's kink is being fucked while she's asleep, that's a situation that you've got to set upbeforehand. And even if she ends up telling you the sex was great when she wakes up, that doesn't let you off the hook, either. A commenter on Bossip put it this way: "so she got slipped a roofie, date ra.p.e.d and wrote a song about it. life gives you lemons you make lemonade i guess."

And another thing! How many pieces of popular music have to be written about how pushing booze on women until they vomit all over themselves and ultimately juuuust barely consent to having sex with you is sexy? Because these songs actually glamorize the behavior of rapists. And even if you're the elusive chick who happens to be into that, presenting this situation as "spectacular" is both a) not particularly interesting, as far as pop music is concerned, and b) harmful to all the women who wake up in that same situation and have a much different descriptor for the sex: "rape."

Last night on the premiere of MTV's The Real World D.C., eccentric housemate Andrew Woods admitted that he had been fired from his college newspaper for drawing cartoons that were "purposely trying to offend women and lesbians." Lying is kind of Andrew's "thing," so it's unclear whether Woods' editors actually gave him the boot. But Woods' cartoons about alcohol-assisted sexual assault, pedophilia, and nonconsenual anal sex? Those are real real.

Woods was plucked for reality television stardom as an undergraduate at Colorado State University-Denver. There, he served as cartoonist for student newspaper The Rocky Mountain Collegian from as early as December of 2008 to at least March of 2009 (according to the paper's online archives).  Over the course of his career there, Woods drew a comic strip called "Repeat/Delete," which often featured a cartoon version of himself getting involved in various sexual misadventures—like, you know, sexually assaulting women. Let's take a look at Woods' oeuvre:

Hmm. Yes. In this strip, we see Woods' cartoon persona admitting to sexually assaulting an intoxicated woman. It's funny, because Woods is implicating himself as a lecherous buffoon, but it's not funny, because this actually happens to women.

Ah. I see. In this work, Woods' persona takes the form of a pedophile. It's funny because it's . . . hopefully untrue.

His masterpiece. Who could forget the edgy brilliance of "wrong hole"?

Here, Woods assumes his Christopher Walkenesque "skeezy dude" accessories in order to advise students how to seduce women. In this edition of "Andrew's Can Do's," Woods suggest that students "funnel some cheap vodka into half a bottle of sparkling cider . . . as long as it looks like Champagne, she'll drink it!" Woods assumed this character's signature robe and wineglass in his Real World audition tape (hoto above).

In this strip, Andrew thinks that a girl with a pudgy tummy is hot, prompting his friend to declare him "sick." It's funny because girls with fat tummies are gross. This, coming from someone who was instantly declared a virgin when he entered the Real World house last summer.

But what did his contemporaries think?

In his time at the paper, Woods was criticized for his sophomoric humor, grammatical errors, and depictions of sexual assault. One female student wrote that Woods' column "has depicted women as helpless, stupid and incapable of successful relationships"; another student responded that the women criticizing Woods should stop talking.

Thanks to his stint on the Real World, Woods is prepared to silence all the haters. In the premier episode, Woods tells new housemate (and insta-crush) Emily that he's a cartoonist, and that he's intent on getting some of his work published in the District—"maybe in the Washington Post."  Close. Woods ended up interning for the Washington Times, where Woods' signature illustrated rape jokes apparently didn't make the cut. For Woods' work with the paper, he stuck to less controversial territory: an editorial cartoon [PDF] featuring Americans being boiled alive in a bubbling cauldron of national debt.

I am absolutely appalled at your answer to a recent letter from "Victim? In Virginia." This letter was from a college student who got drunk at a frat party and was then raped by a guy she met there. You didn't even seem to care about what happened to this young person. Did it even occur to you that she might have been drugged at this party? You were more focused on blaming her for drinking than answering her question in a responsible way. I am disgusted at your answer and think you owe her an apology.

Dickinson has had a few weeks now to reconsider the advice she gave to a rape victim, and she still doesn't get it. Here is how she starts her response:

To recap, "Victim" asked a very serious question in a very thoughtful way. She said she had gotten drunk at a frat party and went to a bedroom with a guy.

After saying in advance that she didn't want to have sex, she did have sex.

"She did have sex" is not what happened. Rape is what happened. Obviously, the difference between "having sex" and "rape" is lost on Dickinson, which is why she's so unsuited to answer the victim's question—"Was I raped?" The answer is "Yes." Dickinson's answer involved telling the victim she victimized herself, downplaying the guy's role because he was intoxicated, repeatedly referring to the incident as "sex" and providing a definition from RAINN, and telling her to ask her rapist about what happened, but never plainly stating that the victim was raped. This victim came to Dickinson to find out if her experience was rape; Dickinson's advice failed.

Dickinson doesn't see it that way:

In my answer, I told her that "no means no" — before or during sex, sober or drunk (I assume the guy had also been drinking).

I told her that she had been raped, and I included information from the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (rainn.org) to further educate her about this.

I told her to go to her student health center and seek medical and emotional support and counseling and to get advice from professionals at school.

I told her that the perpetrator should be confronted by authorities at school because he might have done this before and might do it again unless he is stopped.

Did we read the same column? Dickinson did not tell her she had been raped. She told her she had "sex that shouldn't happen" . . . after she made clear to the victim that her "own awful judgment" is what led to the sex that shouldn't happen. She did include information about contacting counselors and school authorities about this—which is great—but she did not write that "the perpetrator should be confronted by authorities at school." She wrote that "You must involve the guy in question in order to determine what happened." You. The victim. She told the victim to confront her rapist, not the authorities.

Dickinson then apologizes for "the part of my answer that has enraged readers" (I'd argue that most of the answer enraged readers, but fine):

Unfortunately, I started my answer by expressing frustration at her judgment to get drunk at a frat house, calling it "awful." This is the part of my answer that has enraged readers, who have accused me of "blaming the victim."

As a mother (and stepmother) to five daughters — four in college — I have counseled (and worry about) all of my many daughters because of how vulnerable they are if they choose to drink. Drinking to intoxication poses very serious security issues for our daughters and sons, because being drunk impairs judgment and the ability to discern risk.

Because "Victim" wondered where the line was, I tried to draw it for her. My intent was to urge her (as I often urge readers) to take responsibility for the only thing she could control—her own choices and actions—but I regret how harshly I expressed this.

I certainly didn't intend to offend or blame her for what happened, and I hope she will do everything possible to stay safe in the future.

I'm grateful that she chose to share her question with all of us, because talking about it will help others.

Throwing "daughters and sons" in here obscures the point. Informing women and men about the risks of drinking is a very different task than addressing the problem of rape. Yes, drinking can be dangerous for both men and women—when men and women drink too much, they can make themselves sick, get massive hangovers, sprain ankles on the stairs, lose their wallets, and fall off barstools. These are unfortunate side-effects of drinking which the drinker brings upon him or herself.

But when a woman gets drunk, it's also more likely that a man will rape her. Being raped is not a significant risk for a drunk man at a campus party. This is not an unfortunate side-effect of drinking. It's a product of our sexist society, and one that goes far deeper than telling women they have to lay off the sauce because drinking is too dangerous for them. In some ways, our society is safer for men. But that is not every woman's fault. It is a problem that must be addressed by all of us.

Dickinson wants the victim to know this: "I hope she will do everything possible to stay safe in the future." The effect of that statement is that she hopes the victim won't keep doing what male college students around the country can do without fear—drinking, making friends, going to house parties, being alone with a classmate. I hope she can find the strength to ignore that advice. If we succeed in convincing women that this behavior is dangerous, we will also convince men that only bad girls do these things. How can you be held responsible for victimizing a bad girl? As Dickinson's advice has shown, everyone knows that bad girls victimize themselves.

I agree that "talking about it will help others." I'm just so glad that it's not only Dickinson who is talking about this. Change.org is also hosting a petition to ask Dickinson to revisit her remarks (again).

The "Cheetah," as you surely now know, is a variety of female human who is sexually aggressive, but too young to be labeled a "cougar." In other words, she is a pathetic and gross specimen of female who must be re-branded as a feline, lest she begin to suspect that desiring sex makes her, you know, human.

Men despise and fear the cheetah for her uncanny ability to prey on drunk dudes for sex, engage in a behavior known as "cock loitering," and appear "dreadful without her makeup on" the next morning. But Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and I are more concerned with her uncanny ability to act suspiciously like a different class of sexual predator!

"We’re all familiar with the scenario of someone isolating you when you are too drunk to give informed consent and forcing sex on you," Sady noted on Feministe. "We’re so familiar with it, in fact, that we already have a name for people who do it. And it’s not 'cheetahs.'”

In this edition of Sexist Beatdown: Do men re-code sexual assault as "beer goggles"? Will a patronizing feline persona actually help us talk about male victims? Has Tiger Woods ever been so relevant to a discussion? Find out, after the jump!

SADY: hi! sources inform me it is CHEETAH TIME!

AMANDA: you are mistaken. cheetah time is around last call, which situates it around 2 a.m. here in washington d.c. although i am ignorant to the exact hour of cheetah time in new york.

SADY: well, i kind of hope that no time is cheetah time? because the new york observer informs me that the "cheetahs," this new and playfully named subgroup of ladies, are actually kind of engaged in some QUITE UNETHICAL behavior, possibly.

AMANDA: what are you going to do about it? round up all the cheetahs and put them in ... some sort of zoo?

SADY: THE JAIL ZOO.

AMANDA: i have determined that the only way to deal with the very rapey behavior of these "cheetahs" is to jokingly incorporate them into some sort of homosocial masculinity-building exercise, in order to not have to think about women sexually assaulting people.

SADY: oh, good! i think some people have already started this project, potentially!

AMANDA: grrreat!

SADY: i mean: i don't actually think that we are meant to think that the cheetahs as described in the observer article are out date raping people. i should say that. i think it's just an unfortunate combination of language choices and hyperbole, intended for humorful effect, that leaves one with that unmistakable impression. but still: i think it's worth noting that the language choices and hyperbole went unnoticed as "accidentally coming together to describe a serial date rapist" because the serial date rapist in question was a lady. because if it were a dude behavior pattern this article was talking about? people would PROBABLY NOTICE. and not give it cute animal names and a tongue-in-cheek article treatment.

AMANDA: well, it's interesting, because whenever i write about sexual assault, particularly DRUNKEN sexual assault, i always get the same comment from men: "how is this different from the time i totally got beer goggles and woke up next to a super ugly chick i instantly regretted fucking?" and i can say, well, i know the difference between having sex and then saying, 'oops. bad idea," and, you know, rape. but this article made me question whether men really have a way to talk about sexual assault experiences as something OTHER than the beer goggles

SADY: yeah. there's a crucial difference between "i shouldn't have wanted to do that but at the time i seriously did want to do it, OOPS" and "i did not want that to happen and then it did because i was unable to resist or know what was going on." and in this article, one blends in to the other in a way that disturbs me. because i seriously do wonder if the conversation we have around rape – which is a conversation i take part in, a lot, and which i'm happy with on a number of levels – does us a disservice in that it doesn't stress that informed consent is necessary no matter WHO you are. so the possibility of a dude being taken past the point of informed consent, bullied, abused, coerced, intimidated, etc. doesn't register as serious for us. it registers, if at all, as FUNNY.

AMANDA: yes, and the men express a lot of discomfort with this situation in the piece, but it's all carefully divorced from non-consent—it's discomfort with her not looking good without makeup on, discomfort with kissing a cheetah IN THE LIGHT OF DAY, discomfort with her totally wanting to marry him. nd the idea in the story that these girls have tried to coerce these drunk men into DATING them seems pretty off-base to me. it seems almost like a stand-in for the experience of the women coercing the drunk men into having sex, honestly. i mean, if the "cheetah" (OK. I am going to use the word) is only propositioning the guy anytime she happens to see him drunk in da club at 2 am, and not over the phone on the weekend looking for a dinner date, it seems pretty clear that the lady is looking for sex.

SADY: right. there's a discomfort there that's probably meant to be just standard "don't let 'em stay for breakfast"-ness but given the details of ladies waiting until a guy – ANY GUY – is wasted past the point of no return and then isolating them from a group under false pretenses and then employing their sex/boyfriend-nabbing maneuvers? it seriously comes across as more sinister than that. and again, so that it doesn't come across as me randomly accusing some person i don't know of sexual assault based on a clearly-meant-to-be-funny essay: i don't think that's EXACTLY how it went down. i think those elements were played up to make it funnier. but if you knew anyone who operated this way in the actual world, that would be cause for serious, serious concern. but maybe even my urge to be cautious about this is indicative of something.

AMANDA: well, i know that i usually don't hesitate to point out that behavior like this, while not necessarily rape—who knows what happened after they stumbled into the cab—it's still something we should address in the larger context of sexual assault. but again, given the obvious hyperbole of the piece, it's hard to know what's honest and what's exaggerated

SADY: yeah. ultimately the only people who know what happened are the people involved. but i definitely don't think it's out of line to talk about it in the CONTEXT of sexual assault behaviors. because seriously, all those "accidental" rapes we keep hearing about where the person WHOOPS just up and raped someone? could really be avoided by adopting a measure such as, "don't pick out piss-drunk people who can't even form a coherent sentence as sex partners." but it's hard to even see it in this case – it almost slips under the radar – because we have the idea that men are unrapeable. always being willing and ready and able to have sex is a big part of our idea about how the male sex drive works.

AMANDA: you pointed out in your piece on Feministe that the joke doesn't work, but if it DID WORK it would be because a. men want to have sex with everything! and b. it's absurd that a woman could force a man to do something he didn't want to do. and it's interesting to think of the expectation that men are always up for sex in the context of sexual assault, because that traditionally masculine requirement basically translates into a constant state of consent. but the morning after, when the Observer writes a humorous essay about the situation, the perceived damage isn't that the man had sex when he didn't want to, but that he had sex with the wrong woman when he did want to, and had there been any hotter, younger, less desperate girl at the bar that night, there wouldn't have been a problem at all.

SADY: righto. and, i mean, i don't think it's out of line to point out that the MAJORITY of rapes, as far as i've ever been able to gather, are of women. and that may, in fact, feed into our perceptions of men as unrapeable, because we're just not used to imagining the victim as of the male gender. but sometimes these things are hard to measure because societal expectations and biases are getting in the way of people (a) naming their experience, or (b) having people pay attention to their experience. like, it's been really hard for me to find statistics on domestic violence in same-sex relationships, because most people are measuring the rate of violence by straight men directed at straight women. or sometimes, the other way around. but that doesn't mean domestic violence in same-sex relationships is nonexistent, it just means we aren't out there looking at those stories enough. sorry, LONG. and also we're not used to the idea that women are capable of violence? PS? like, gender stereotypes tell us that ladies don't do violent badness, that is a Male Thing.

AMANDA: right, and I also think it's very much a reflection on who we will accept as a victim. two boyfriends getting into a fight is perceived differently than a boyfriend and girlfriend—first, because people don't like to talk about gay relationships, AT ALL, and second, because people have a hard time seeing a "true" victim in male-on-male violence

SADY: right. like lil' wayne and the lady who sexually abused him as a kid! i mean, he was A CHILD at the time, and it's been spun as "wow, you got lucky at a really young age, HILARS."

AMANDA: and they're also so bent on seeing a woman as a victim in a domestic dispute that, in cases where women do beat up on their partners, it's sometimes ignored, because men don't want to be seen as victims, either. and so—I know you didn't want to talk Tiger!—but Tiger Woods' wife's club-wielding will be announced publicly by Woods as an "act of courage," no matter what actually happened that night. meanwhile, he's getting a lashing in the presses over having sex with a lot of women, which is pretty standard, but also just very tiring to me, because the very serious ALLEGED CLUB WIELDING INCIDENT MY GOD has been all but excused by his infidelity

SADY: yeah, precisely. and maybe part of that has been about the fact that we don't fully know what happened, too, because i know that there are already people who are like, "this would never be so readily excused if the victim were A WOMAN," and it's like: hello, i would like to introduce you to The Many Conversations About How Rihanna Deserved It And Also The T-Shirt To That Effect And Also Basically A Shit-Ton Of Other Incidents Of Domestic Violence And Victim-Blaming.

AMANDA: (I had forgotten about the t-shirt!)

SADY: i mean: yes, it would be excused by some. but also: i think it's really important to say that this shit is unacceptable no matter who you are or whose car you are beating with a golf club. NOT. COOL. and i think sometimes we, as women, forget that we can be guilty of shittiness to our partners that is just as damaging as a dude being shitty to a lady. i mean: i think the notion that women can't be abusive or that men can't be victims of abuse is actually pretty sexist.

AMANDA: it's extremely sexist. and i think it often actually encourages women to be abusive, because there is the sense that you can't "really" hurt a man. and that's awful.

SADY: it relies on this concept of us as impotent, and that our little fits are just womanly irrationality and kittenishness, and that men are always stronger than we are and in control of the situation. and, i mean, i've caught myself being shitty with my anger, and seriously had to ask myself if i would ever accept this scenario if it were a dude doing it. answer: sometimes, no. granted, i've never gone at someone with A FUCKING GOLF CLUB, but still. the idea that women are weak and men are strong becomes a lot less plausible (if it ever was) when the woman in question is armed with a large metal object.

AMANDA: haha. right. but even if not! i remember, a while back, sort of forcefully slapping my boyfriend's shoulder in frustration. no golf club! and it took a couple of times for him to tell me that that hurt him and it wasn't acceptable. and i was confused and then really ashamed about it, because i sort of didn't realize that it hurt him. which is terrible. :(

SADY: right. and that is the thing! like, everyone in the world should be taught how to identify when they're being abused, but they should also be taught how to identify when they're being abusive. Not that we all will be abusive or go around beating each other, but we shouldn't teach only one population to examine and control themselves. and i actually think the concept of An Abuser, as this super-human monster freak who is always only one way in his (note the "his") lifetime ever, prohibits people from that. the same way that saying, "that thing you did was sexist" is hard because people hear, "you are a sexist," and how those are different things, really, but our concept of A Sexist is so scary to us that accepting we are BEING sexist and need to deal with that is hard. like, i think the fact that men are taught to express anger in certain ways may in fact (and does in fact) lead to more men being violent to their partners. but. that doesn't mitigate the possibility of women as abusive as well.

AMANDA: i can attest to people freaking out by being associated with being A Sexist, since I have gotten many confused, angry phone calls from people who have been featured in my column who believe that the name of my column, The Sexist, is a reflection of their personal character. it's really a bit of a problem! what a stupid idea for a column name!

SADY: i find it hilarious and charming!

AMANDA: of course, a lot of the people I do feature are A Sexist. Which is probably why they get so mad about it!

SADY: oh, well. THAT CAN HAPPEN.

Photo by Tambako the Jaguar

When the action moves to the uncontrolled environment of a car, a park or a private home, the rules blur. When a boy goes "too far", this is date rape. It can be devastating, with the girl feeling betrayed and no longer trusting her own instincts. She may live with the emotional pain of it for years. And all because she believed that it's never too late to say no.

Well, that's an interesting approach. Personally, I would think that telling boys and girls that they must respect their sex partners' stated boundaries, no matter what, would help us all avoid rapes. Remember: Rape is sex without a person's consent. A reasonable person would argue that the problem here is the person who forces a non-consenting person into sex. According to Holmquist, the real problem is the person who refuses to consent to the raping:

The worst advice you could possibly give would be to tell her that she can always say no, even when she is no longer in control. Girls, just like boys, need to be told about the likely consequences of their actions.

To Holmquist, telling girls that they can't say no after they've crossed an arbitrary purity line—after they've gotten into the car, kissed too deeply, wore too short of a skirt, had one too many drinks—will encourage girls to remain completely chaste until they're ready to go all the way. While this theory would do absolutely nothing to prevent rape, it would help reduce reported rapes: If we adopt Holmquist's logic, girls who are sexually violated will no longer recognize their experience as rape, because they've been told that even the most modest of sexual activities—kissing!!—implies consent to the kitchen sink.

Holmquist continues:

This is not to say that "ladies" don't get date-raped. Nor am I saying that girls who behave in a certain way deserve what they get. What I am saying is that girls, if they want to act like boys—getting drunk and being sexually predatory—have to understand that a boy, if he is that way inclined, may take advantage. And boys, for their own protection, need to understand that a drunk girl who he thinks wants sex, may turn around the next day and accuse him of rape. Both are responsible for this tragedy.

Actually, boys can get a valuable heads-up on that rape accusation a lot earlier if "drunk girls" are simply allowed to verbalize their lack of consent before the rape happens. And girls are a lot more likely to escape from an unwanted sexual situation if they're not robbed of the only recourse they've got. As LiveJournal user nacbrie points out, saying "no" is often the only way that victims can "opt out" of a given sexual scenario, on account of the physical and cultural power imbalances that are generally at play in rape. So as long as we're holding girls responsible for their own rapes, can Kathryn Holmquist be held accountable for some tragedy, as well? Because anyone who thinks that the best strategy for reducing rape statistics is to make young girls complicit in their own rapes is a tragic figure indeed.

Last week, I wrote about some disturbing Internet comments posted in the wake of the Richmond gang rape that blamed the victim for drinking alcohol. The post inspired some really positive responses . . . and more disturbing Internet comments.

Alex makes the case for victim-blaming—at least girls will now know "the possible consequences of decisions." Decide to have a beer, maybe you'll get gang-raped: A valuable lesson for young girls:

In all fairness, just pointing out that she did not act in the most intelligent manner is NOT the same as saying she deserved it. You’re right, no one deserves to get raped, however, there IS the lesson here which is to be aware of your surroundings and of the possible consequences of decisions you make. Why SHOULDN’T this be used as a lesson. If one less girl decides maybe she shouldn’t have another drink or walk home alone because of this story, then at least we have gotten something out of this awful situation.

Joe commends Alex for his bravery, and agrees that one high school gang-rape ought to inspire women everywhere to stop drinking and never walk alone:

Yeah, I agree with the one brave person who pointed out that there is a difference between excusing criminals and blaming victims, on the one hand, and pointing out how to be safe, on the other. And you are not required to view everyone who comments as either feminist enough for you, or a hateful victim-blaming rapist-defender. Where is real life in this? In real life, unfortunately, we can’t just rail against the bad things people do and hope they will stop, we also have to conform our conduct to our knowledge that people do those bad things and are probably not going to stop. It is not excusing muggers to suggest someone stay out of the alley at 3 a.m. It is not excusing abusive cops to suggest someone cooperate with the police even when they have done nothing wrong. And it is not excusing rapists to suggest someone behave according to their knowledge that there are rapists.

Watch as BakinCookies inserts enough qualifying phrases to attempt to slide his or her victim-blaming past the censors:

Men need to learn how to respect Women better and with that said, Women also need to learn how to have respect for themselves and their bodies! This applies to this article in so many ways, im doubting it was consensual because she was beaten and robbed Therefore men should respect women more! But she could have been Flirting a little and tempting the men to force themselves on her. Either way someone or all of them were lacking respect in some way which totally sucks for the girl. But we will never know the whole truth cause people fabricate stories to fit their needs. Im not makin excuses for the boys im just sayin, Ladies respect yourselves And maybe men will respect you too.
Either way rape is rape and its not right!!

Jane, for one, doesn't see the difference between blaming the victim and blaming the perpetrators. Also, something about racism?

It’s funny how all the people who chide those who opportunistically use this terrible misfortune to lecture women on how to ‘behave’ themselves don’t hesitate to use this terrible misfortune to lecture others on how to raise boys, respect another gender, etc.

However, maybe this event had little to do with gender and respect for women. Maybe it had more to do with race. Maybe the attackers saw the victim mostly as a white person upon which to vent their hatred of whites. Likewise, maybe all of the people who walked by without care for the girl did so because they had no affinity with nor sympathy for a white person.

Maybe the lesson here isn’t how women should behave, or how boys should behave, but how minority groups (including whites among predominately black and latino persons) should be wary of those who aren’t their kind—because it’s all too for majority gangs to treat minorities as sub-humans unworthy of the most basic consideration and respect.

Of course, unlike the other moral instructions people are retrofitting to this event, one of race consciousness and caution isn’t a particularly trendy sermon to preach. So people instead will preach the sermons that will get them gold stars pasted on the foreheads by either their right-wing cohorts or their women’s studies professors.

Sarah suggests that rape can be solved with more rape:

I don’t know about anyone else, but at 15 I was drinking (mind you, at home, with my gal pals and my parents around). I don’t see anything wrong on her behalf. If these men (or were they her age?) get away with this, there is something seriously wrong with society and the judicial system. I hope (since I don’t pray) that she gets the best of mental health care to overcome this. And I hope those guys are anally raped by huge 12 inchers in prison thrice a day (:

B thinks the victim wanted it:

Rape is a crime, but girls are getting wild and boys will be boys no matter what. I know by fact that is part of the deal to be raped by all the gang member before you can get in!. Girls are playing strong games and now someone got hurt very bad and the news are not working with real facts. LETS GET THE FACTS FIRST! IS SHE CAPABLE TO SPEAK OUT AND FIND OUT MORE IF SHE WAS GOING TO BE PART OF THE GANG!! Our society is allowing to much violent shows on Television and part of that is the imitation of tv in real life.

And Johnny is sick of all of you people:

Why do you guys comment on this stuff? Why write long paragraphs about your supporting or differing opinions? It doesn’t do anything, it’s just a waste of time.

Photo via stevechasmar, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Don't believe me when I say that people actually think drunk girls deserve to get raped? Let's take the case of the 15-year-old California girl who was brutally gang-raped at her homecoming dance for hours in front of dozens of onlookers. Apparently, the victim had been drinking. For some people, that turns her horrific rape into a valuable morality tale that will put the fear into our nation's drunk girls. Helpful Comments points us to some not-atypical online reactions to the story:

Good news, criminals: As long as everyone in your general vicinity is sippin' on a beer, you may rape, murder, and pillage at your leisure!

Group drinking. That says it all. Booze will bring out the best in people. (yea go have another one) Perhaps the boys are not all to blame. The young lady had one too many.

Blame it on the alcohal:

I’m a 15 year old girl in New York, and I’m sorry to say this, but isn’t it possible that witnesses saw her get drunk with alcohal and belived she willingly participated as an effect? I’m sorry, but she shouldn’t have drunk alcohal to begin with. I’m not saying she deserved it, but she should’ve been much, much wiser. Getting a ride from dad was intelligent, but she should’ve kept to herself and concentrated on meeting her destination instead of hitting the beer at such a late hour, away from the gym. Agian, I’m this girl’s age, and I asure you that while I do sympathsize with the victim, she also has made very unwise mistakes on her part.

It's official: "I'm not sayin' it's her fault . . . " is the new "I'm not racist, but . . . "

wait wait wait…..she was drinking prior to this? hmmm. im not sayin its her fault or she deserved this or anything but shes 15 and drinking outside on a bench by herself in a dress….as much as people want this to be a perfect world, its not. what she was doin in the first place was asking for trouble. if your not gunna be smart about the choices you make, im not gunna feel bad for what happens. it sucks she was raped and she will never forget this and it will hurt her for the rest of her life, but come on lets be smarter than that.

One commenter took the presence of alcohol as an opportunity to float this theory: Even though the girl was gang-raped, beaten, robbed, and hospitalized, maybe it was SHE who raped THEM:

These poor misdirect young men will all be exonerated by the court when they get a good lawyer. Young men that are only guilty of allowing a girl that was drinking to take advantage of them. The reason no one went to call the police was that she was a willing participant. No more then that, she was the one who instigated the sexual activity. Why else would so many fine young men in that community be involved in such a heinous deed.

How about #7, NOBODY DESERVES TO GET RAPED YOU STUDPID IDIOT:

#1 Its Richmond High.#2 Its dark.#3 Your a 15 year old girl.#4 You accept the invite to go off in a dark area of campus and consume a larg amount of booze with a low life crowd.#5 Geeeeee, I got raped!#6 Duuhhhhh!These guys are low life scum bags, your 15 and you want to get drunk with them!YOU STUDPID IDIOT

Photo via Trendhunter

Earlier this week, we looked at the popular fear of date rape drugs, and how that fear helps distract us from acquaintance rapes that involve willingly ingested substances, like beer. Beer, you say? In this edition of Sexist Beatdown, Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and I talk booze—the most common date-rape drug, the cause of a shit ton of other problems, and a pretty fun thing to drink, in moderation. After the jump: we bemoan the double standard of passing out, yearn for a consentalizer test, and check in on how our femininity is holding up—it's tipsy, thanks for asking!

SADY: hello! good evening! it is time to discuss date rape drugging, or so i hear!

AMANDA: it is that allotted time!

SADY: first of all, i have to say that your take on the whole scenario was (AS USUAL!) highly impressive and nuanced.

AMANDA: well—some issues were perhaps underrepresented there. there are A LOT OF ISSUES. with this ISSUE.

SADY: well, this whole report – that date rapes involving date rape drugs are less rare than date rapes involving date drinking—is kind of set to be a highly polarizing thing. like, some people have been like, "see? the floozies are just out getting drunk! and making up accounts of druggedness!" and others are like, "there are, too, date rape drugs!" and what impressed me about your take was that you didn't (a) minimize assault, or (b) discount that date rape drugs might in fact be less common than acquaintance rape without that factor involved.

AMANDA: I saw that Broadsheet had already written a pretty thought out post that discussed why some women might report being drugged when that was not necessarily the case—and obviously, i read the Daily Mail's amazingly stupid take on it which suggested that women are big drunk liars—so i thought i'd focus on the media's focus on date rape drugs. which is so interesting, because even calling them "date rape drugs" is misleading—the narrative really suggests that when this does happen, it's mostly strangers swooping in with these drugs, and not "dates" per se.

SADY: yeah, exactly. and this is a terminology flaw which i myself have fallen victim to: using "date rape" to mean "rape that was not the stranger-jumps-from-bushes-with-gun" sort of rape, rather than "rape by one's date," which is what it should (and does) mean. i mean: i have to tell you. i don't doubt that date rape drugs are used. a friend of mine just told me a story about how she suspects she may have been drugged, and although she was not assaulted, all the details line up.

AMANDA: oh yes! that is a point that i realized after i wrote my piece! it's possible that druggings are more common than they appear in these studies, but they do not lead to assaults. and that can skew the data, and getting drugged is still an awful thing to have happen to you, even if it doesn't end in assault. [Note: Marcella Chester has since counted the ways that the data on drink-spiking can go awry. Read it!].

SADY: right, it's still a violation.

AMANDA: but the whole issue of rape is an issue of skewed data, because reports are so infrequent. but i would THINK—and i dont know this—that reports of drug-assisted rapes are higher than those that don't involve drugs. because the media is pretty clear about reviling dudes who drug women, and less clear about reviling men who rape women who are drunk.

SADY: yeah. exactly. like, if you're drunk, it just means you're a big old mess and/or tramp anyway, and probably you were just drunk enough to "have sex" and "regret it" and etc.

AMANDA: and i think that "reporting" difference is true anecdotally as well—they may not even tell their friends or their boyfriends or what have you, or they will tell them and they'll be discounted. Etc.

SADY: whereas if you were DRUGGED, you can clearly point to an outside agency in getting you to the point where you could not give informed consent.

AMANDA: right. there's a degree of "proof" that society accepts with those rapes.

SADY: yeah, and, i mean, i have to tell you: i like to drink. i'm having a drink as we speak! and i am a lady who's pretty smart about listening to my body, drinks-wise, and not having more than i can handle. but there have been occasions – whether i didn't have enough sleep the night before, or forgot to eat lunch, or whatever – where A Normal Number of Drinks magically became, for that night, One Too Many Drinks, and i ended up in a messy state. and I was always surrounded by people who cared enough for me to point out that i was a mess, and call me a taxi, and whatever. but HOW SHITTY WOULD IT HAVE BEEN, STILL for someone to assault me in that state? i mean, why the fuck are Drinks considered an extra culpability on your part?

AMANDA: i too love drinking! and perhaps that should be disclosed whenever i defend ladies who like to drink against charges of flooziness! so, FULL DISCLOSURE, drinking! but so: the researchers note that drinking can be sometimes unpredictable, and if your diet or sleep or mood is different it can affect how alcohol affects you. so when, a couple weeks ago, my boyfriend told me he "felt like he had been drugged" because his level of hangover way outstripped the number of drinks he had, i thought it was kind of interesting. but i didn't actually think he HAD BEEN DRUGGED. though i suppose that's possible. but i feel like, perhaps, when women are unexpectedly slammed with alcohol—and particularly if they are assaulted while in this state—they may be told over and over again that these experiences are a result of being drugged. i'm not sure if that actually ever happens. but i DO know that if a woman was ever considered unreliable because she reported she was drugged and raped, and it turned out she wasn't actually drugged, then that would be very sad.

SADY: yeah, exactly. and that's the thing: while saying you were drugged can be pointed to as an example of how you didn't exercise agency in the matter (which is important for rape survivors, because as we all know making Bad Decisions means you totally shouldn't have the right to pursue a criminal sentence for someone who had sex with you against your will) it is also a wedge that can be used to destroy your credibility. which is why women i've known who came to the conclusion that there must have been some drugging involved in their assaults have been hesitant to come forward, because they're afraid that would be used against them. which, in that case, what was your crime? having too many drinks? FALLING ASLEEP????? not to be a big old spoiler, but dudes get to have too many drinks and fall asleep all the time! i mean, a gentleman of my personal acquaintance had too many drinks and was wandering around and got – apparently – randomly beaten up by some dudes in his neighborhood, and as far as i know the police did not tsk-tsk him for wandering around all drunk and beatable.

AMANDA: i know. dudes get to have SO MUCH PASSING OUT without the consequences! and young dudes still binge drink a lot more than women do, not that you would realize that given the media attention given to the matter. male drinking tends to be a bit invisible, i think—it's just something men do, so there's no excessive fear about it. even though men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women are. i mean, there are fears about men drinking, but they are fears about literally drinking too much and dying from drinking too much. not fears about drinking too much and getting raped, or even drinking too much and raping another person.

SADY: which maybe SHOULD be a fear. i think this is an important point: these studies which say women who have been raped frequently have also been drinking? they maybe miss the point that women have been drinking while in an environment where everyone – dudes included – is also drinking. and i genuinely think that, if ladies have these regimens over watching their ladyfriends' drink consumption and making sure they are safe, dudes should also have people watching them to make sure that they don't get to the point where they are legitimately too drunk to even get what consent MEANS.

AMANDA: yeah. and, i mean, it would help if kids knew what consent means before they knew what "body shots" means. i think it should be on the driving test, personally.

SADY: yeah. that's a worrisome statement i just made, because it seems to remove some culpability from the rapist. but i suspect that (a) assholes who drink become bigger assholes, and (b) since we all recognize that a drunk asshole is liable to get in a bar fight or whatever, we should also recognize that a drunk asshole might be an asshole who is even more inclined to rape than he was previously.

AMANDA: yeah. it seems that while society's prescriptions for female drinking include "drinking correctly"—covering your glass, going with friends—male drinking is just defined by "drinking more." which—again—i like drinking. and if my drinking becomes a personal problem, that will be bad for me. but if my drinking becomes a problem for other people—like i end up raping women or hitting my kids when i'm drunk—then that's something that REALLY needs to be addressed by society.

SADY: yeah, precisely. and the reason i think this relates to date rape drugs (ha, remember those? HI, date rape drugs!) is that, you know, they exist. and even if they exist less than rapes which occur while the rapist and/or the victim were drinking, that's still a problem. one incident of someone drugging a person in order to rape them is too many, i would estimate. but the fact that rape occurs more often in proximity to alcohol – well: first of all, i can recall being pressured to drink A Bit Too Much by certain dates, so i think it's reasonable to state that alcohol can also be an agent of coercion. and, (b) people drink. Specifically young people who want to socialize. As an extremely shy person who is far less shy after drinking, I get the reasons for this. And the fact is that if alcohol coincides with rape, this DOES NOT MAGICALLY REMOVE THE FACT THAT RAPE IS BAD from the equation!

AMANDA: exactly. and i think a lot of it comes down to ladies drinking, because drinking is a dude thing, and when ladies drink it means they're, horror of horrors, ACTING LIKE MEN, or taking away dude-time, or revealing that drinking does not actually make you more masculine and / or awesome. but sorry, dudes, i'm not going to stop drinking!

SADY: yeah! i mean: i think the Horror of Drinking is the Horror of Unladylikeness, presented in vaguely medical terms. fact is: yep, when ladies drink a bit, they let down their various guards and DO NOT always behave in the manner in which society has accustomed us to expect from ladies. they get loud. they get a bit rude or wacky, at times. they EVEN make out with people that they would otherwise be constrained from making out with! (and oh, how I know that feeling.) BUT, with all the loud and wacky and unladylike behavior they are engaging in, GUESS WHAT? you still don't get to assault them! because we are not in Ye Medieval Tymes any more, and rape is not just something that happens to Virtuous Women of Goode Renowne. it can happen to ladies who are acting up, too. and, miraculously, it is still a crime. just like you don't get to rob somebody because you think he is a jerk.

AMANDA: yeah. ok, do you wanna break? i think i'm going to go buy some beer

SADY: do it, lady! ENJOY YOUR BEERS. YOUR BEERS OF FREEDOM.

Photo by jbcurio, Creative Commons Attribution License

I, for one, am celebrating. First: the research suggests that women aren't regularly being drugged on their night out—wonderful news! But it also means that we may finally retire all the media scare-tactics, the girls-night-out drink protection strategies, and mercifully, every single absurd product that has arisen out of society's inflated concern of drink spiking—and has dangerously distracted the rape conversation from addressing the real experiences of victims.

Confession: I have always been a roofie skeptic. This is not to say that I'm an all-out Date Rape Drug Denier: I do think that these drugs exist, and I do believe that some women have been drugged by men who intend to rape them. I just think that this happens about as often as the classic stranger-rapist-in-the-bushes scenario—in terms of real rape statistics, hardly ever. A 2006 study of 120 date rape cases in the United Kingdom revealed that 119 of the cases involved alcohol, but only two involved the date rape drug GHB. Of course, those two cases are not insignificant, and the experiences of women who have been drugged should not be discounted. That being said, these numbers just don't support the widespread fear that girls' nights out are being sabotaged by amateur druggists.

But despite my reservations about the actual risk of "date rape drugs," I have completely assimilated to the behavior modifications required by the "date rape drug" myth. When I step away from my beer, I'll tell a friend to watch over my glass. When I'm sitting at the bar, I'll nurse my drink close to my body. I will go so far as to take my beverage along to the bathroom while I'm having a piss. And I'm not alone. According to a study in UK's More magazine, "77 per cent of women claimed to keep hold of their drink even when they go to the toilet."

I blame the date-rape-drug-industrial-complex for forcing me to squat over a dingy bar toilet with a pint in one hand and a wad of toilet paper in the other. According to the study, the constant reminder that date rape drugs are a real danger to women has significantly altered our behavior patterns, even though law enforcement sources have found that the drugs pose a "very limited threat." As the researchers note, "routinized DFSA is improbable as a widespread crime; it involves a stranger extracting an individual from her social group unnoticed, administering a substance undetected, precisely controlling drug effect, and reliably erasing memory of the experience."

Importantly, this "date rape drug" narrative does not describe a date rape; it describes another form of stranger rape. This time, the rapist isn't jumping out of the bushes—he's jumping out from below the bar-stool to sprinkle odorless powder in your drink before dragging you to an undisclosed location. As the study notes, "the media tend to represent drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) as a significant and widespread problem, to the extent that newspapers have appropriated the phrase 'date rape' to refer to this crime." This is the most dangerous aspect of the frenzy over "date rape drugs"—the way the myth has managed to completely co-opt the conversation about acquaintance rape. Instead of concerning ourselves with the disconcerting fact that most rapists are known to the victim, the public has been told to turn its attentions to yet another outlandish crime scenario that does not pose a significant threat to women.

How has the "date rape drug" myth gained so much traction in the public consciousness? The study floats a theory: The worry over "date rape drugs" helps "give shape to otherwise nebulous threats," in turn"allowing us to displace worry about other, less manageable threats." We drum up concern over the risk of "date rape drugs"—then devise strategies for managing that risk—because it's easier than actually doing the business of preventing rape. It's easier to keep your thumb over your bottle than it is to stop your boyfriend from raping you. It's easier to take your drink to the bathroom than to understand why a person you trust would assault you. It's easier to tell grown women what to do than to teach our children not to grow up to be rapists. And it is a whole lot easier to avoid a crime that rarely happens than to prevent the type of sexual assaults that occur every single day.

This is why the "date rape drug" myth arose hand-in-hand with public awareness of acquaintance rape. While society has begun to recognize rapes against wives, girlfriends, friends, and co-workers as serious crimes, it has failed to embrace the idea that husbands, boyfriends, trusted friends, the guys in your office, and other seemingly normal men can be rapists. We're still much more comfortable thinking of rapists as men who lurk in the shadows, guys who only emerge in polite society in order to secure another rape victim. The news that most rapists aren't easily-identifiable as villains—men hunch-backed from crouching in the bushes, their hands caked with sedatives—has failed to inspire solutions aimed at preventing men from raping.

The public is similarly slow to accept that most victims don't fit the storybook stereotype of a buttoned-up virgin sipping on hot cocoa. Thankfully, the requirement that victims be the model of chastity has eroded a bit in recent years. Now, society is ready to accept that a rape victim is still a rape victim if she goes out to a bar with her girlfriends and has a few drinks—as long as her intoxication is capped off with a surprise roofie. The more likely scenario—that a rape victim goes out to a bar with her girlfriends, willingly ingests alcohol, and then is raped—is more difficult for the public to swallow.

As the idea of "acquaintance rape" and the myth of the "date rape drug" rose, so did another trend society wasn't ready for—women who drink like men. Female drinking has increased rapidly in recent years (though we're still far outstripped by the boys)—in 2006, 15 percent of women engaged in binge-drinking, compared to 30 percent of males. As the study notes, society has failed to process its discomfort with girls who drink: "Despite greater gender equality when it comes to public drinking, there is no clear language through which the female experience can be discussed, let alone celebrated in the manner that remains central to masculinity. . . . female drinking is widely seen as challenging gender norms, either as a deviant subversion of ideals of femininity or as part of a broader project of female emancipation."

The idea that women who drink are an affront to the "ideals of femininity" has contributed to the widespread perception that drunk women are less-than-perfect rape victims. The perception that female drinking is a conscious sexual subversion on the part of women is problematic on a number of levels. First, it tells women who drink that they're asking for it; that if they are raped, they are somehow responsible for the crime committed against them; that it is their deviant decisions that caused them to be raped. Second, it tells rapists that women who drink are not valued by society; that they are considered "lesser" women; that everyone knows drunk girls are down for sex, and no one will believe they can be raped. In other words, it points out exactly who rapists ought to target in order to avoid the consequences of their crimes. This is how rapists have historically gotten away with raping their wives, and raping prostitutes, and raping fat women, and raping promiscuous women—because society has told them over and over again that these women cannot be raped.

I hope that our culture's outlandish fears over "date rape drugs" go away for a very, very long time. And I hope we replace the fears over drink spiking with educational solutions aimed at teaching men and women how to recognize consent, respect each other's bodies, and really, truly prevent rape. Consider the testimony of one inventor of "date rape drug" detectors: "I knew somebody who was date raped, and I couldn't believe nobody had a product to stop it," he told the press. The problem of date rape can't be solved with roofie-sensitive drink coasters. It can only be remedied by changing attitudes.

THE "SEXY BREATHALIZER" COSTUME:

This little polyester-foam number, which retails for $49.99, invites party guests to see if their blood alcohol content registers as "Boring," "Life of the Party," or "Sotally Tober": All you have to do is blow into the phallic tube positioned in front of some douchebag's crotch. Basically, somebody manufactured a human-sized foam box complete with full-color meter, graph, oversize arrow, and foam erection so that some guy can put it on and say, "Hey, baby! You appear drunk! Why don't you suck my cock to make sure?"

Interestingly, the product page suggests that buyers "Invite your date to dress as an alcoholic beverage for a fun couple's costume!" Because it's not a fun Halloween party until a Sexy Breathalizer Machine pressures a Sexy Margarita to awkwardly assume a kneeling position and fellate it in your living room, right?

Buycostumes.com commenter Becky74 certainly thinks so. "I bought this costume for my husband, seeing as he never knows what to be. I am thinking he will be the hit of the party!! This costume is hilarious, especially seeing as we live in Wisconsin!! I think everyone at the party will get a kick out of it! We are keeping it TOP secret so no one knows what he is going to be and the suspense seems to be killing everyone, so they know it is going to be good!! Maybe he will win first prize this year!!"

Commenter CPickle, on the other hand, raised a structural concern with the product. "I got this costume for the annual costume party and it was perfect," CPickle wrote. "The only thing that could be changed is the 'blow tube'—it took longer to get it to stand up than to get the wrinkles out of the rest of the costume."

Not only is the costume outfitted with a foam penis—it's outfitted with a foam penis that you have to carefully massage in to place in order to ensure that it is erect.

If you're not prepared to shell out 50 bucks for a breathalizer machine that can't even get it up, don't worry. Any guy who would actually wear this costume doesn't need to pay to look like he preys on drunk women. Just check out the model: he's already got the turtleneck.

CNN's Stephanie Chen discovered adult kickball today. But somebody didn't stick around for the post-game.

In her report, Chen argues that grown kickball enthusiasts hit the field in an attempt to reclaim their lost youth. Kickballers, Chen writes, hope to relive the experience of "fifth-graders during PE class in Sparks, Nevada." As any veteran of adult kickball can tell you (don't judge me: I went to like two games!), the bygone era kickballers are attempting to reclaim is college, and the real sports begins after the field is empty.

Chen mentions the words "beer" and "single" only once in her piece, but from my experience, these are far and away the most important elements of the adult kickball experience. "With players who are trapped in a world of layoffs and job freezes, these adult leagues, contests and tournaments are the equivalent of sandbox time for children," she writes. "They can make new friends and go for a beer after the game."

A beer? Talk about a write-around. How about 12 beers (Miller Lite) chugged quickly in succession after the game? The actual ball-kicking is just the first half of the Kickball Biathalon, traditionally completed by a flip-cup tournament. DCKickball's Web site makes its priorities clear: "So we play kickball for 45 minutes and then we go to the bar for 4 hours."

And those "new friends"? The technical term is "fuck-buddies." From what I can tell, performance on the kickball field is little more than an elaborate flirting mechanism in order to aid young professionals in their mating activities.

Just listen to Chen's characterization of the game: "Spongy red balls wait in a queue, separating two teams wired to smack their opponent. Within seconds, the players dip and dive like dolphins until one player stands alone, relishing in victory."

Two teams wired to smack their opponent? With balls? Consider that impulse, 12 beers in, and just guess what kind of event competes the Kickball Triathalon. (Hint: there are sexy pirate costumes).

Picking your sex partner based on their proficiency at beaming other humans with huge balls may sound gross, unappetizing, and depressing—a lot like the bar scene in general? I dropped out early on—I was a fucking loser at kickball, worse at drinking 12 beers on a Tuesday, and really, really bad at tolerating 22-year-old fuckers initiating small talk by informing me that their jobs were "top secret." But I do know two long-term couples who met through the adult kickball network. They've both since split—perhaps adult relationships based on miming college life can't last forever. But remember, eternal kids: Kickball fuck-buddies may come and go, but the DCKickball Flickr pool lives on.

Photo by phillipshannon

The woman, who arrived at the bar alone, is "fascinated by human sexuality," she tells me. Sure, she's got theories. "Some of my ideas are pretty radical," she insists, before flagging the bartender for another Pink Slip.

Two sex tips from a drunk person, after the jump.

ONE. What if human sexual attraction were not based upon pheromones, genetics, or parental issues, but rather "completely mundane things that we don't even realize?"

Say you're really into scuba diving. You feel at home in the water. Always liked aquariums. Did you ever think that the reason you are attracted to that guy with a large mouth, wide nose, and the oily skin, is because he looks like fish? Think about it.

TWO. What if human sexual attraction were not based upon pheromones, genetics, parental issues, or marine life, but rather upon the feminine or masculine qualities of one's teeth?

Say you're really attracted to very feminine people. Perhaps the reason you like the guy with the rippling abs, the deep voice, and the Joe Biden sensibility is because, beneath it all, he has really girly teeth?

Or say you're the more masculine type. Perhaps you still harbor an attraction to Tom Cruise—even knowing what we all know—because of his extremely pronounced cuspids?

Try it out next time you're on the prowl. First, check out your cuspids—the longer, pointy ones toward the outsides of your smile. If you look like a vampire, you're masculine. If your teeth appear more generically human, you're feminine.

First, zero in on a target with the appropriately gendered teeth, depending on your sexual interest. Now, approach them and start a conversation. Maybe you could discuss with them your radical theories on human sexuality; whatever. Just make sure to keep your teeth hidden beneath your upper lip, the palm of your hand, or a medical mask. Once things have progressed to pleasant conversation, reveal your teeth to your potential mate—preferably, dramatically. If things go well from there, your dental make-up is likely in line with your target's gendered attraction. If your teeth bomb, it was never meant to be.

Have you received a sex tip from a drunk person? Submit their insights to the Sexist.

Photo by pink sherbet photography

Today is the Washington City Paper's first ever Food Day, meaning that all the paper's columnists have been sent out into the wild to report on what our people are consuming. Though food and sex are inextricably linked "in the limbic system of the brain" and in "pop culture," I'm eschewing edibles today. I've been tasked with reporting on a less sexy, but more noble, enterprise: daytime boozin'.

You can read my posts over at CP's Young and Hungry blog once I get my ass to a bar. In the meantime, let's get started by reading up on Earl, D.C.'s greatest Erotic Photo Hunter, who manages to get some daytime drinking in between pokes of the Megatouch console.

Show Earl a photo of a topless woman, and he’ll respond like most heterosexual men—sure, he’ll take a look at the boobs. Show Earl two photos of a topless woman, and he’ll ditch the boobs—that’s an amateur move—and look for the color of her thong, the pattern of her rug, or how many eyes her dog has.

Earl is a connoisseur of Erotic Photo Hunt, an electronic bar game that puts a bawdy twist on the “spot the difference” puzzles that fill out kids magazines or the comics page. The rules of Erotic Photo Hunt are simple. Drop in a quarter. Choose “Babes” or “Hunks.” Inspect two photos of the same soft-core pinup, identical except for five Photoshopped differences. Touch all the variations before time runs out, and you advance to the next round. Each round is faster than the last. Never go straight for the boobs—differences are most likely to reveal themselves in the less titillating areas of the screen, like foliage, motorcycles, or pets.

“It’s like playing the one-eyed monster,” says Earl, a semi-retired mechanic who prefers to go by his first name. “You just put your money in, and it just takes it and stares back at you—challenging you.”

Earl is up to the challenge. He’s been playing the game for just over a year, but he’s already dominated the machines at most of the downtown bars where it’s on offer. When a new topless woman pops up—be she lounging on a yacht, surrounded by bananas, or with an Easter basket placed fortuitously between her legs—Earl instantly touches the screen five times, as if working from muscle memory. He seems to barely glance at the screen as he coaxes out a succession of “mmms,” “aahs,” and “yahoos” from the game, payment for accurate touches. Earl attributes his ability to a lifetime working on cars and houses. “I just look, and it’s different,” he says. “You just look at something, and see what the difference is, and bada-bing, bada-bang. One, two, three, four, five.”

The temptation comes courtesy of game distributor Megatouch, whose touch-screen consoles also provide less risqué bar fare, like poker and glorified crosswords. But not all Megatouch consoles are created equal. Since Earl began photo hunting, he’s tried about three dozen District machines, each providing varying levels of screen quality and sensory response. L Street basement bar Recessions “has the best-calibrated machine in the city,” Earl swears. In addition to its prized machine, Recessions also has one of the city’s worst Erotic Photo Hunt consoles—the bar’s second machine, which is smaller, poorly lit, and often requires several finger-pushes to register a hit. Earl holds the high scores on both of them. He’s also the top-scorer on the machine in Mackey’s Public House, a flight above Recessions. Earl harbors a particular distaste for the Black Rooster machine just down the street. He has a high score there, too.

The Recessions machine isn’t just the best—it’s also a couple blocks from Earl’s home. You can find him camped in front of it daily, peering at topless women under a black eagle-embroidered hat when he’s not helping out with barback work and small repairs. When Earl sits down to play, he first locks the machine “so it don’t swivel on you,” then camps on the right side of the screen. “I’m always on the right. I always sit on the right. I’m right-handed, so I’m just like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom,” he says. Earl can sometimes find all the differences before even one of the game’s units of time disappears, “until things really speed up,” he says, “after Round 26.”

On lower rounds, Earl takes the time to crack jokes or explain technique. “Will somebody give her a hand?” he says, after finding an upper extremity missing from one model. “See, it looks like her tit is covered up more on that one,” he says. Sometimes, he plays with friends. “When I play with them, they sit back and let me play, and if I’m missing something, they hit it. They’re like backup.”

Earl’s personal bests—428,000 points alone, and 492,000 with a team—may be modest in comparison to national records. While there’s no national body that keeps an official count, in 2006, a guy going by the name “Tanman” scored 1,042,768 on a Tampa, Fla., machine, and has the cell phone shot posted online to prove it.

Earl doesn’t keep such records. He doesn’t maintain a consistent handle. He will always heed another player’s call for assistance. “Everyone asks for my help,” says Earl, whose games are largely funded by rookie bargoers who need an extra hand. As a result, even Recessions management can’t recognize Earl’s complete dominance of the board. “I don’t know who’s the best,” says Mohammad, a bartender. “I don’t play the game. But he plays a lot. He loves the game.”

Erika, a Mackey’s employee who sometimes serves as backup for Earl, confirms Earl’s generous habit. “Earl takes this seriously, like it’s a job,” says Erika, who says she joins in only on weekends, after her own workday is through. “But 99.9 percent of the time, it’s other people calling him—‘Where’s Earl?’” she says.

“Where the fuck is Earl,” adds Earl.

But Earl remembers which scores are his own and which he still needs to beat. Sometimes Earl signs his games as “ECinDC”; sometimes, simply “Me.” If he gets a high score with the help of a friend, he’ll sign it “Us” or use a double attribution like “Kenny Earl.” For a time, he concentrated on filling an entire leader board—the top 10 scores—under the name “Death to Balls.”

“A while back, a bunch of players were coming in, calling themselves ‘Team Balls,’ ‘Cow Balls,’ ‘Pig Balls,’” Earl explains. “At some point, I just got tired of the balls.” For a month, Earl worked methodically to rid the leader board of balls. “I’ve had people come in and say, ‘Who’s Death to Balls?’ I just don’t say anything, because I’ve got the whole screen filled. I had to go in there and clear the whole screen to get people to try and compete again.”

Earl isn’t an Erotic Photo Hunt completist, but he is a purist. He never plays “Hunks”: “I don’t care if he’s wearing short shorts—I don’t want to be touching his johnson, you know what I mean?” He also avoids Megatouch’s other variations on the classic version—“Chippendales Photo Hunt” and “Penthouse Photo Hunt,” which provide additional distractions for an extra quarter. “You can guess what those are like,” says Earl. “Swinging dicks? I’m not going down that avenue,” he says of the Chippendales version. The Penthouse game has similarly failed to entice him. “So you see the pubic hair. They’re not spread open or anything,” he says. “If I wanted to see a hairy crotch, I wouldn’t be paying for it.”

Earl would just prefer if everyone kept his or her pants on. In the classic game, neither Babes nor Hunks reveal any genitalia, and some of the women even appear with modest bikinis covering their breasts. Earl doesn’t claim to favor any of the few dozen models offered up to him every evening. He has, however, begun to resent some of the women who appear in the more frustrating puzzles. “A couple of them on there, I would smack the shit out of them. I’m just tired of them,” says Earl. “This is a bitch I hate,” Earl says, indicating a busty woman posing suggestively on a director’s chair. “She’s in like seven different pictures, and they’re all terrible—just in a kitchen with so much bullshit behind her.”

To Earl, Erotic Photo Hunt is hardly erotic—just highly addictive. Earl gives one reason as to why he keeps playing the one-eyed monster, and it has nothing to do with boobs. “After 400,000 points,” he says, “you get a free game if you beat the high score.”

Photos by Darrow Montgomery.