Alcohol, Rape, and Bristol Palin
Last week, Ta-Nehisi Coates blogged about the following excerpts from Bristol Palin’s memoir:
Bristol proceeds to down wine cooler after wine cooler, as she “slowly surrendered to their woozy charms.” (Pg. 3) Levi keeps replacing her finished wine coolers with new ones, and soon Bristol hits “that awful wall” that takes her from a “happy buzz” into “the dark abyss of drunkenness.” (Pg. 3) The last thing she remembers is sitting by the fire and laughing with friends, and doesn’t remember waking up in her tent the next morning “with something obviously askew.”
Bristol awakens in her tent, with no recollection of the night before. She looks over and sees Levi’s empty sleeping bag right beside hers, and hears Levi and his friends “outside the tent laughing.” (Pg. 3) Bristol quickly texts her friend to get over to the tent, and she immediately pops over and tells her, “You definitely had sex with Levi.” (Pg. 4)
Coates asks the question, “Isn’t that rape?” In a follow-up post, Coates adds that the implication of nonconsent comes from another quote:
“Suddenly, I wondered why it was called ‘losing your virginity,'” Bristol writes. “Because it felt more like it had been stolen.”
Um … from my reading, the “implication” of nonconsent comes from the fact that she describes being intoxicated to the point where she couldn’t even remember the events of the previous night.
Naturally, the very first comment to Coates’ article accuses Palin of lying. So damn predictable.
I don’t know what happened between Palin and Johnston. But I do know the scenario described here is a common one. Using alcohol to lower a woman’s inhibitions is a frequently-used tactic. It was a freaking punchline in Friends. “Hey, let’s get you another cocktail!”
Let me put this as clearly as I can. If consent is not given freely, then it’s not consent. If you need to get her drunk, it’s not consent. If you need to threaten her, it’s not consent. If you need to slip something into her drink, it’s not consent.
If the other person doesn’t consent? That’s rape.
The situation Bristol Palin describes? That is not consent. And unfortunately, it’s very common.
So if you’re planning to get someone drunk in the hopes of “getting lucky,” you’re not planning to get laid. You’re planning to commit rape.
Any questions?
Benda
June 30, 2011 @ 9:59 am
My only question is how many drinks the ghostwriter had before that purple prose looked printworthy.
Apart from that? That scenario (regardless of its veracity) describes a rape, no ifs, ands, or buts. Impaired judgment leading to an inability to give legal consent and being taken sexually advantage of? That’s pretty much textbook.
The accusation of lying? That’s horribly common too. Ignoring that Bristol is a member of a famous family, and that making the implication of rape in the book could provoke a libel suit, there is a persistent myth that most rape accusations are false and motivated by revenge. Nevermind that rape is a hugely underreported crime, and that pursuing such an investigation is a great deal more physically and emotionally invasive than ‘he said, she said’.
Tony Montana
June 30, 2011 @ 10:45 am
I think that definition of rape is far too broad. By the argument implied there (that drinking alcohol renders one incapable of informed choice, thereby absolving you of any responsibility), you could make the argument that drunk drivers or indeed anybody who commits an offence, having made themselves drunk or otherwise incapable is not responsible. Would it be a defence if Johnston was also drunk? Should there be breathalyser checks made mandatory before any sexual act?
It argues a lack of morals to sleep with drunk girls, but calling it “rape” and thereby casting it in the same light, with the same penalties as taking somebody at knifepoint into a dark alley is wilfully ignorant and you have to wonder what axe they have to grind.
Jim C. Hines
June 30, 2011 @ 10:47 am
1. Do you know what consent is?
2. Do you believe someone can give consent while drunk to the point of blacking out?
3. Is forcing yourself on someone without their consent rape?
John Doe
June 30, 2011 @ 10:59 am
Wow…by that definition, I have been raped a number of times.
rape –noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
Seems like the common denominator is “force” and I don’t think anyone forced her to do anything in this scenario. She was acting of her own free will. A person being drunk does not imply consent but it also does not give her the right to label a male a “rapist” simply because she regrets what happened. She got blackout drunk and that was her decision.
I’m sure many females will have a huge problem with what I have said but think about it this way: if a male gets drunk and hits his wife, it doesn’t change the fact that it was his decision to get drunk and he is culpable for his actions afterward. Bristol Palin made a mistake. Levi should be ashamed of himself for his actions. But she was not raped and he is not a rapist.
Jim C. Hines
June 30, 2011 @ 11:04 am
Not terribly interested in debating with anonymous commenters on this one.
John Doe
June 30, 2011 @ 11:08 am
So the fact that I don’t want my name published makes me argument invalid? Or is it that I made a very valid point and you want to try to minimize it by pointing out some completely irrelevant detail?
Not wanting my information on your website doesn’t make me any less right.
Jess
June 30, 2011 @ 11:14 am
I think some of you are missing a key part here. If a girl gets passed out drunk, what she will do is pass out, harming no one. She’ll just sleep it off. A drunk driver will kill someone, and an abuser will physically beat someone. That causes harm.
A girl who is passing out should not be subjected to having her body harmed by someone with enough control to engage in a sexual act.
That is wrong, it is rape, and drinking too many wine coolers then trying to fall asleep should not be equated to criminal acts of harm like drunk driving or abuse.
Jim C. Hines
June 30, 2011 @ 11:43 am
If I have time, I may write up a separate post to point out all the ways the drunk driving analogy is ridiculously flawed…
Jim C. Hines
June 30, 2011 @ 11:44 am
Oh, yes. It didn’t surprise me at all that the first comment to Coates’ piece was about Palin lying. It’s common all by itself, and when you add the name “Palin,” the responses get even uglier.
Andrew S. Balfour
June 30, 2011 @ 12:14 pm
The fact that you’re wrong, however, does. I will quote Jim from two posts up, with a helpful answer key just for you:
1. Do you know what consent is? – (from Wikipedia) “Consent refers to the provision of approval or assent, particularly and especially after thoughtful consideration.”
2. Do you believe someone can give consent while drunk to the point of blacking out? – Shit no. If I have to explain this, that says something rather dramatic about you.
3. Is forcing yourself on someone without their consent rape? – Again, this really shouldn’t need an explanation.
Jordan Lapp
June 30, 2011 @ 12:39 pm
The situation described would definitely be rape. Trust should be the default reaction.
With this particular person, whose mother has a history of fabrication for political ends, and for whom a lack of consent in the losing of ones virginity would be extremely politically expedient, doubt should be the default reaction.
kimberlycreates
June 30, 2011 @ 1:01 pm
I love how some of these arguments against your points essentially boil down to blaming the victim. Classic. Thank you, Jim, for posting this.
Anthea
June 30, 2011 @ 1:06 pm
It’s an interesting question. My gut reaction is that what happened to her was tragic, but not what I would consider rape.
One thing to keep in mind is that drinking to the point where you don’t remember what happened is not the same as drinking to the point where you passed out.
I would agree that having sex with an unconscious and inert woman is rape.
But I’m not so sure that sex with an willingly intoxicated (I’d consider it differently if she was unknowingly drugged) and enthusiastically actively participating woman is rape. Even if she doesn’t remember it afterward.
I’m not trying to say it’s a good thing – I’m not a fan of drinking to intoxication at all and maybe that’s part of the basis of my view on this. I definitely have some tendency to judge that someone who willingly gets drunk will hopefully learn from their mistakes, but has no right to deny responsibilities for any actions they take while drunk.
As I said, I’m finding it an interesting, and mildly uncomfortable, question.
Taking your definition of this situation as rape, would you say Levi should be prosecuted for that crime?
Jim C. Hines
June 30, 2011 @ 1:08 pm
Not my place to tell someone whether they should or should not press charges. I’d say that’s entirely up to Palin.
Patrick
June 30, 2011 @ 1:23 pm
There are several issues here, not least of which is the conflation of ethics with criminal law. The ethical issues in this situation are distinct from the question of whether or not a crime took place.
As for the ethical considerations, there’s the moral responsibility that Johnston bears for his actions and the moral responsibility that Palin bears for hers. While we shouldn’t minimize his responsibility neither should we minimize hers. By choosing to drink, she accepts moral responsibility for the decisions that she makes while under the influence. If she agrees to (or initiates) sex while under the influence, then she bears responsibility for that decision. Likewise, he bears responsibility for his actions. If they both drunkenly agree to sex, that’s regrettable, but they share in the responsibility equally.
Maybe that’s not what happened. Maybe he forced himself on her while she was sleeping, or maybe he intentionally plied her with an excess of alcohol to deliberately impair her judgment. Maybe she used alcohol to intentionally bypass her own inhibitions and then took advantage of him. Or maybe the circumstances were entirely different. All we have in this instance are snippets of commentary about a hagiographic biography. We have no specifics and we have no response from Johnston. Palin herself has attempted to clarify the situation and has said that she does not believe that Johnston raped her, rather she feels as if her virginity was stolen. There’s a lot of ambiguity in that sentiment and it’s most likely a futile effort for anyone except her to try and unpack exactly what she means. But she’s said, directly, that Johnston did not rape her.
Patrick
June 30, 2011 @ 1:28 pm
Mr. Lapp,
Are you saying that because you disagree with her mother’s politics you doubt the truth of anything she says? That seems… so very petty and sad.
Jordan Lapp
June 30, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
@Patrick,
If someone *fabricates* the truth fairly often for political expediency, one could assume when they make a politically expedient statement they are fabricating it… Doing otherwise seems…so very naive and sad.
Jordan Lapp
June 30, 2011 @ 1:37 pm
Perhaps I should clarify that without sinking to your level: When a politician, or someone so intimately connected to a politician that they might as well be the same person in the public’s mind, makes an extraordinarily politically expedient claim, it would be foolish to blindly trust them.
Anthea
June 30, 2011 @ 2:06 pm
I can respect that.
Patrick
June 30, 2011 @ 2:11 pm
I hesitate to respond yet again, but there’s a thread that runs through a lot of these kind of discussions. It’s all too easy to treat the people involved (especially if they’re public figures) as generic placeholders for some class, or group of people. Too often we treat the rape victim as emblematic of all women, or we treat the rapist as emblematic of all men. We do it with Jews, we do it with Muslims, we do it with Catholics, and we do it with Germans, or Japanese, or Cubans or Mexicans…. We abstract away the individual to make a political point.
Very rarely, that’s valid. But far, far too frequently we reduce people to political abstractions in service to prejudice.
Ms. Palin is not her mother, regardless of anyone’s ability to distinguish between them, they are, in fact, distinct. Personally, I don’t know enough about Bristol to know how much of her mother’s politics she shares. But more importantly, when it comes to issues of rape, or personal responsibility, or emotional struggle, or simple human decency, her politics are irrelevant–and her mother’s even more so.
Mr. Lapp urges that normally in these matters, “trust should be the default reaction.” But not in this case. In this case, her mother’s politics leave such a taint that “doubt should be the default reaction.” Minimizing another person’s experiences or denying them the courtesy and respect that we extend as a matter of course to all others, simply because of their politics is prejudice. And prejudice should not go unremarked or unchallenged.
Jordan Lapp
June 30, 2011 @ 2:26 pm
Bristol herself has made a career of advocating abstinence, so her claim would be politically expedient were Sarah Palin not involved. Her claim DIRECTLY supports her politics. If, say, Laura Bush made the same claim, my default reaction would be to trust her even though her husband’s politics are pretty opposed to mine. That pretty much blows your prejudice argument out of the water. It IS however, interesting that YOUR default reaction is to believe others are prejudiced. That’s telling.
And arguing that Bristol isn’t connected to her mother is just inane. You think she would have been on Dancing with the Stars otherwise?
Patrick
June 30, 2011 @ 3:28 pm
What exactly are you saying here?
It seems like you’re saying that because she advocated abstinence we shouldn’t trust any of her claims about sexual consent.
Is that a policy recommendation?
You’re saying we should treat her differently than we’d treat anyone else because of a political position that she’s taken. You even stress that you’d believe someone else who hadn’t taken such a strong abstinence position. How is that not prejudice?
Jordan Lapp
June 30, 2011 @ 3:44 pm
I so blown away that you aren’t familiar with the concept of vested interest that you’re either an idiot (which isn’t evidenced by your posts), or you’re a troll. Either way I’m not interested in continuing this.
Patrick
June 30, 2011 @ 4:25 pm
I understand the concept of vested interest.
You’re saying that she has a vested interest in crying rape so her credibility is called into question.
I’m saying that when someone makes a claim about rape, we should listen to what they say and offer them the same credulity we would extend to anyone else.
Even if she’s a Palin.
I realize you think I’m trolling, but I’m not. This is an important point and I think it needs to be made. What you’re saying is that we should judge the credulity of a person’s claim based on some factor other than the evidence at hand. That’s a position that has implications:
Should we doubt rape claims made by nuns? After all, the nun has a vested interest in keeping her vow of celibacy intact.
Should we doubt rape claims made by wives seeking divorce from their husbands? Vested Interest: settlement of joint assets.
Should we doubt claims of rape made by political protesters against soldiers? Vested Interest: making the regime look bad.
Now, I suspect that you don’t think we should discount claims in any of those other situations. And I hope that upon reflection, you don’t even really think that we should doubt rape claims made by abstinence advocates. But that’s what you’ve said and what you’ve continued to defend.
I don’t think you’re an idiot. But I do think you’re wrong.
There’s a certain tendency in contemporary American politics that tends to dehumanize political opponents. All sides do it, but it’s mean and it’s petty. And it’s all too common for people to allow these prejudices–and yes, that’s what they are–to sneak inside. In some ways it’s easier to dehumanize than debate, easier to marginalize than confront. And online, it’s especially easy to let political snark blossom into something worse.
UnravThreads
June 30, 2011 @ 5:17 pm
This is one of those horrible discussions.
I don’t think anyone should be taken advantage of in such a potentially dangerous way, whether it’s because they’re drunk or because they’re walking around in revealing clothes. I think that anyone who sees someone in that situation and willingly forces themself upon said person, whether gently or harshly, is guilty of some form of sexual abuse. I think that term is better to use here than rape, because in my mind rape is a more violent form (The name itself implies it).
But substance abuse does cloud the issue, and it raises questions as to whether she could or couldn’t give consent.
1. Why did she consent to drink recklessly? She put herself in that situation.
2. Why did he continue to fill her with drinks? He put them both in that situation.
3. Why did his/her friends intervene? Is it not their duty to her and themselves to stop this?
4. Going back to #1, why did her friends not stop her drinking so heavily?
5. Was he drunk himself when #2 happened?
Alcohol impairs and bolsters your senses, sadly affecting the wrong ones for both categories. It makes passing judgement, in my opinion, so much harder because you didn’t witness it. You didn’t see how badly her judgement was affected, nor what state he was in. You didn’t witness the events that lead to the sexual encounter, consensual or not.
I think that, in a way, it’s her fault for drinking so much and not saying no to the drink. I’m not saying it’s entirely her fault for getting drunk, it’s what people of certain ages do, but I think that absolving her – and by extension, him and the friends – of that responsibility does not help the whole issue. If you don’t want to put yourself in danger, don’t drink so damned much. Many, many, many people have a good time by drinking responsibly, and many, many, many others cause pain to themselves and others by drinking irresponsibly.
My point is that this is a very complex problem. Like a number of proposed sexual crimes, they’re unprovable. Was she consenting to the sex? Did he consent to the sex? Did she turn around and pull that card on him? As Patrick implied in the post above me, it is a card that some people of both sexes have pulled, and wrongly so. Without knowing exactly what happened, I think situations like this will be hard to press judgement on.
I do think, however, that she needs to get her head sorted r.e. the alcohol.
The anonymous poster from your LJ
June 30, 2011 @ 7:53 pm
Oh please do.
Throw in the leaving your door unlocked and your wallet visible ones too, please.
Jim C. Hines
June 30, 2011 @ 9:24 pm
“1. Why did she consent to drink recklessly?”
I have two responses to this. One is that we don’t know she did consent. Over on LJ, there’s been a lot of discussion of this point. If she was inexperienced with alcohol, she probably couldn’t estimate the effect it was having. There were also a number of stories of men slipping women higher-proof drinks, or mixed drinks with more alcohol, or basically finding ways of upping the alcohol intake without the woman’s awareness.
And even if she was drinking with full awareness and consent, that makes zero difference to someone’s decision to commit rape. There are consequences to getting drunk — hangovers, vomiting, etc. Someone else choosing to rape you is not a consequence of getting drunk; it’s a consequence of that other person making a choice.
Re: the false rape reports, I did a post about that a year ago here if you’re interested.
Nate
June 30, 2011 @ 11:19 pm
There is a lot of debate in the legal world about what “force” is required for a sexual act to be rape. I personally support the New Jersey definition that counts simply the inherent force required by the perpetrator to physically touch the victim. Consent is not presumed: it must be affirmatively given.
Regarding impairment due to alcohol as a defense to criminal guilt: culpable mental states can be disproved (burden on the defendant) by showing that the defendant was so intoxicated that s/he was incapable of forming the required intent or purpose. This is hard to prove. This means a sufficient level of intoxication can exculpate someone of a crime requiring specific intent. However, I think drunk driving laws do not require a culpable mental state, so the defense does not apply. In addition, drunkenness cannot be applied as a defense to rape because there is no required culpable mental state, just a sexual act by force. That “force” can be easily defined by lack of consent. The common sense of the word “force” includes no consent.
UnravThreads
July 1, 2011 @ 2:53 pm
I’m not disagreeing with that, Jim. As I said, I don’t think that getting yourself drunk should allow you to be subject to things like this. I do think, though, that greater emphasis needs to be put on the fact that she was intoxicated, even if just to get the message across that drink can, does and will put you in a position where – if you’re not careful – you are in serious danger. That needs to be stressed, and strongly.
In a way, I’d say it’s clear she consented to the drink. She was, after all, the one drinking what she did. But as I said, we don’t know the exact situation. She could have been pressured into drinking by her peers, your point about her maybe not knowing her boundaries is valid and so is the one about the wrong intake. They are all entirely possible situations, just as her consenting to drink that much and knowing she’s drinking that much are. My point about “Just say no!” stands here, because I think that’s a very important thing to know, no matter the situation.
At the end of this, we don’t know Bristol, we weren’t there to see what happened, and we can’t know what happened unless someone turned out to witness the whole lot. Whilst I wouldn’t wish this on anyone, I do hope it serves as a warning to others – especially teenage girls – that drinking in anything other than moderation is a very dangerous and risky game to play, and alcohol shouldn’t be used lightly.
P.S. Yes, I’m slightly anti-alcohol, but fully anti-reckless drinking. I still remember seeing a ‘friend’ pass out at a party and then throw up over the floor. It wasn’t just him who was affected, some people carried him out, others tried to get hold of his parents and so forth. We all were affected by it, I guess, especially the girl who’s party it was – and whose party he tarnished with his behaviour. Oh and my father was supposedly a big fan of drink… Ahem. Sorry, that was a tangent.
And I’ll read that post. I have a feeling I have done, but a refresher wouldn’t hurt.
Elaine
July 2, 2011 @ 4:18 pm
The sad fact even in this day and age that you need to be aware of your surroundings..I think everyone on this blog (probably everyone in the country regardless of political afficiation) is that Levi is a cad. Even in the 50s, he should have been horsewhipped, not only by taking advantage of his girlfriend, but later writing a book about their relationship. And teenagers are terribly trusting (not working with fully functional brains here until age 25). But at some point, Miss Palin needs to acknowledge that she made VERY BAD choices and was VERY unlucky at a result. Perhaps these days young women are not taught that if you go out with a group, have someone to watch your back. She had very poor friends, a piss poor boyfriend, and now she has a learning experience that one would hope other young women who feel themselves invulnerable, can take a lesson. It isn’t fair, it isn’t legal, but it happens. Dealing with the consequences is invariably unpleasant. I’m an old 70’s uppity feminist and cheerfully look to the carving knife as a solution, but I repeat…this isn’t utopia..a young girl NEEDS to protect herself. yes, this mean the loss of freedom to walk home at 2AM by oneself. After the fact one can take legal recourse, but that doesn’t restore what was taken…
Jim C. Hines
July 2, 2011 @ 4:38 pm
So you’re saying that getting raped was a consequence of Palin’s “poor decisions”? Because personally, I tend to think of rape as a consequence of someone choosing to commit rape.
Tia Nevitt
July 2, 2011 @ 5:56 pm
Bravo! Very well put.
Elaine
July 2, 2011 @ 6:20 pm
Life is tough, and it’s tougher if you’re stupid…It would be a good world if there weren’t people who take advantage of peopele. There are rapists out there, disguised as friends, etc. I’m not saying it was her fault…”she was asking for it”…but I was a teenage girl too, and even at 60, I have to be aware of my surroundings, know what is going on, consider my options, so I don’t end up a victim. It’s tough when you’re a kid and you want to trust everyone, and unfortunatley life teaches you that you cant’ trust everyone. I’m not dismissing this as “boys will be boys” or even a crime of opportunity. I’m hoping that Bristol is presenting this as a cautionary tale to young girls to not make themselves prey. Rape is not a sexual crime, it’s a crime of violence. A woman unfortunatly is usually the victim of this violence.
Jim C. Hines
July 2, 2011 @ 6:29 pm
You’re not saying it was her fault? You’ve talked about how she “made herself prey,” implied that she’s stupid, described it as a “learning experience” for her, and suggested that getting raped is the consequence of *her* decisions.
I didn’t write this post to give people a platform to tell women why it’s their own fault if theyre dumb enough to get raped, and I’d like you to stop now. Thanks.
J. Cheatham
July 2, 2011 @ 9:20 pm
A couple of drinks lowers the inhibitions, not necessarily wrong if that’s what both parties want. Getting them so drunk they’re unconscious isn’t much different than smacking them on the head. Boils down to if that’s what it takes for you to get the girl then you aren’t much of a man and you should be locked up in a cage.
Nichole
July 3, 2011 @ 9:14 am
OH GOOD GOD! You people are killing me.
I’m going to explain it from the point of view of the California Penal Code (PC 261), which is virtually identical to every other penal code in every other state.
Sexual intercourse is only lawful when both parties look each other in the eye and say “Yes, I want this.” If a woman is A) intoxicated, B) Asleep, C) Medicated, D) Mentally Deficient , then she can not say “Yes, I want this.”
If she does not look you in the eyeballs, with a sound mind, and say “Yes, I want this” then it is rape.
That’s what consent is. It’s one person giving another person permission to do something. The permission must be active.
For example, if a man wants to put his penis in a woman’s vagina, he needs her permission first. If she is so intoxicated that she is unaware of her surroundings, then she can’t give active permission. If she’s asleep she can’t give active permission. If she’s woozy from her medication, ditto.
This is the law. If anyone doubts me, I’ll cut and paste it for ya (from the California Penal Code).
261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:
…..
…..
(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.
The punishment for rape is 6 years in prison. Once in prison, you fellas can get up and personal with the definition of “consent”.
Ethan
July 3, 2011 @ 8:31 pm
What is described is rape.
2 questions for you. Try to stick with the questions and not go off topic.
1. Do people sometimes lie or exaggerate the truth in memoirs?
2. If a woman says she is raped, does that mean it is automatically true?
I understand the myriad of side issues, and rape is a horrible crime, but someone has to admit that there is the possibility–however miniscule–that Bristol Palin is not telling the truth. Whether what’s printed in the memoir is the truth or not is beside the point. The possibility is there. Right?
Jim C. Hines
July 3, 2011 @ 8:41 pm
Not sure who you’re talking to here, but do you get the irony of changing the subject to, “But she might be lying!” while ordering people not to change the subject?
Ethan
July 3, 2011 @ 11:32 pm
Sorry, I was referring to the outrage over questioning whether it’s true or not. That whole “so damn predictable” comment … I wasn’t talking about the straw man argument about rape. Yeah, sure, it’s rape, you win, bully for you.
geekgirl99
July 7, 2011 @ 6:25 pm
Wow, some of these comments are horrible. Thanks for posting this entry, Jim, and fighting the good fight in the comments. And commenters: if you start a comment to a blog entry about someone being raped with the word “But!” then maybe you should just STFU. Trust me, you are not saying anything new, and probably saying something vile.
Laura Resnick
July 13, 2011 @ 6:42 pm
“So if you’re planning to get someone drunk in the hopes of “getting lucky,” you’re not planning to get laid. You’re planning to commit rape.”
Well said, Jim.
When I was a mid-life grad student several years ago, I was so disturbed by the enormous quantity of known, reported incidents of date rape, whether drugging a girl or getting her drunk, among students. God alone knows how many cases went UNreported–but it wsa certainly far, far too many.
Paula B.
July 14, 2011 @ 3:25 pm
Can a man be raped too under this definition?
It feels awfully simple to say that a woman who is intoxicated cannot give consent and therefore the man has raped her. It puts all of the blame on the man and makes it out like he is a predator. We do not know how drunk Levi was that night. If he was just as intoxicated as she was, then under your definition above he would also be a victim of rape, by her. So they raped each other?
The reason I bring this up is, because it assumes every guy who has sex while drunk does it informed, or that every time a guy has sex he cheers about it, no matter the circumstances.
I’m disgusted by the idea that a woman cannot be held responsible for her actions when intoxicated, but the man must be. I’m also disgusted by the slandering on both sides. “Bristol is a victim, Levi is a Cad. Bristol was asking for it, Levi was just being a guy.” I think its just as awful for advocates of rape victims to vilify men without proof or evidence or witnessing the event as it is to vilify a woman who comes out and says she was raped and that is the very tone of this post.
Bristol has come out and said she wasn’t raped. Mayhap BECAUSE the circumstances are such that Levi himself was drunk. Or mayhap because she knows she drank way too much without being plied upon by him, that she put herself into a situation where she was out of control. I don’t know but I wish that the same people who believe and support a woman who comes out and says “I was drunk, and I was raped” could also support a woman who comes out and says “I was drunk, but I wasn’t raped”.
Jim C. Hines
July 14, 2011 @ 5:01 pm
“Can a man be raped too under this definition?”
Yes.