Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

I think this is a really great idea. And I’m sure you’ve seen the debacle behind Amy Dickinson’s answer to a rape victim by now. The girl had gone to a frat party, gotten drunk, and gone off to a room with one of the residents of the house, under the guise that “nothing would happen.”

Amy said: “First, you were a victim of your own awful judgment. Getting drunk at a frat house is a hazardous choice for anyone to make because of the risk (some might say a likelihood) that you will engage in unwise or unwanted sexual contact.

You don’t say whether the guy was also drunk. If so, his judgment was also impaired.”

Even a female rape columnist is almost excusing the male rapist under the excuse that he was drunk, while blaming the female victim for taking the risk of getting drunk at a frat house.

What is never addressed by Amy is that technically, intoxicated people cannot consent to sex. They are impaired and not in a state of mind to give consent. This is rape. Too many people do not understand that even though the person may seem consenting, if they’re blackout drunk, borderline passed out, or vomited 10 minutes prior, they’re in no state to be giving consent to anything.

[Well, and more to the point, a guy who’s that drunk isn’t in any better condition to make competent choices either. So in that narrow, technical sense Dickinson’s point is a good one. Where she, and waaaaay too many people’s argument falls apart is that therefore it’s women’s job, drunk or sober, to avoid drunken men. Instead of putting just as much pressure on men and their wingmen/women to keep them out of trouble. I’m glad you like the idea, Britni. You being a current counselor and into bar culture you’ve got a lot more recent experience than I do. So thanks. —fl]

I’m so glad you wrote this. I’ve taken so much crap on the whole “I guess you think it’s OKAY for women to get raped at frat parties” canard that I could just spit.

When you have daughters, AS WELL AS sons, you teach them responsibility. That means when they’re young they learn not to let the car move until they are wearing a seatbelt. When they get older I will teach them that you don’t drink to the point where you lose control of your own body. Why? Because then you will have lost control of your own body. And that is preventable.

I’ll be linking you this week. Thank you so much, Figleaf.

[Thanks, Fran. Speaking of sons and daughter, I also ought to add that a “check in / car keys” approach entirely side-steps what the inevitable “but ABCs rape XYZs too” derail. It’s not a question of who’s momentarily incapable of competent decision making, nor is it a question of one person being negligent or another unwise overall. Instead it’s a question of assessing each other’s current, local capacity. That and possibly determining whether parties are acting on prior agreement (in which case who are we to get in the way) or whether they’ve just come up with a really bad idea about what to do next. Oh, and bonus question about the check-in thing? Drunk people are extraordinarily bad at using condoms (remember, statistics for effectiveness tend to rely on users being sober, consenting, having the lights on, etc.) so extra credit might be had for saying “you to got condoms?” But I know, I know, first things first, and the first thing is to come up with a humane, non-accusatory way to reduce so-called gray area (Grey Goose?) sexual assault and to make the remainder much more visible and thus harder to escape scrutiny for. (Because “Aww, I was hammered, how was I to know…?” doesn’t fly when there’s social pressure not to act when you’re to hammered to know what you’re doing.) —fl]

If this helps anyone, then I’m for it, but I wonder how effective it will be overall.

I believe that most people think drinking and driving is wrong, so except for diehard drunks and personal liberty freaks, it shouldn’t be too hard to convince someone not to drive.

I wonder, though, how many men aren’t all that upset about the idea of having sexual power over a woman (in any circumstances). If that attitude is present, how successful will awareness campaigns be? My guess is that men who would assault a woman sexually when drunk, might well do so when sober, given the right circumstances.

I guess we continue to work on attitudes and go for the increased focus on those who drink and could commit a sexual assault.

[”...might well do so when sober, given the right circumstances.” Maybe. But even if so I’m still pretty sure the vast, vast majority won’t. And even if you stick to the cynical take on male responsibility there’s still the fact that without alcohol there’s no protective cover at all: it’s a straight up crime with no excuses, no one saying “...stays in Vegas,” none of that. My own observations, based on working in both trendy and low-life bars is that even really disreputable people are if nothing else more risk-averse when sober. And unless everyone else was willing to be just as complicit as the perpetrators (less likely though not impossible) then even when there was drinking I’m pretty sure you’d observe much the same effect if it was part of routine alcohol awareness. Thanks, Chris. —fl]

Thank you for this powerful post.