Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto is probably the closest thing to an authentic Men’s Rights Activist there is operating in the mainstream media today, by which I mean he regularly puts forth “arguments” on gender issues that are breathtaking in their backwardness.
His latest, er, contribution to the gender debate? A column in which he suggested that drunk women who are raped on college campuses by drunk men are as guilty as their rapists. No, really. Here’s his argument, such as it is:
If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.
Huh. I’m pretty sure we determine the victim of a rape not on demographics but based on WHICH PERSON RAPED THE OTHER PERSON. Much in the way we would charge a drunken person who shot another drunken person with shooting that person, rather than simply throwing up our hands and saying, well, they were both drunk, so no harm no foul, right?
For a longer take on the issue, check out this piece over on Media Matters.
Media Matters has also assembled a nice, and mercifully rather brief, media montage of some of Taranto’s other pronouncements on gender issues. See if you can make it to the end without pulling out all of your hair.
Scenario 1: A and B are both so drunk that they’re hardly aware of what they are doing, but they still somehow manage to have sex.
Scenario 2: A is a bit tipsy while B is so drunk that zie doesn’t know what zie’s doing. A and B has sex.
I do think B is more of a victim in 2 than in 1. Yeah, in both scenarios B had a sexual encounter while not really knowing what zie was doing, but only in 2 was there someone who had complete power over zir in that situation. So it’s not like 1 magically becomes completely fine consensual sex just because both were super-drunk, but I do think it still makes a bit of a difference. It’s worse to be violated by someone who knowingly takes advantage of you, than someone who doesn’t know what zie’s doing either.
So this is me trying to claim a middle position between “it can’t possibly be a problem when two drunk people hook up” and “it’s just as much a rape even if both were drunk”.
Also, agree with Ted that scenario 1 is probably really rare, and scenario 2 waaaaay more common.
“If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students ‘collide,’ the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.”
Heeeeeeeeee.
“Your honor, I was walking around drunk one night and I unexpectedly tripped over this drunkette and before I knew it, there I was, fully engaged in the hot and nasty. Too bad she was so oblivious. Yeah, I know, it came as a surprise to me too. Accidents will happen, you know how it is. Anyway, that’s how it went down, I swear, your honor, I swear.”
Or consider the famous “I read Playboy for the articles” cliche. Even given that Playboy has a history of journalistic quality, especially its interviews, you’re still giving money to Playboy.
IKR? “Complaining about rape is demonizing male sexuality, because all men are rapists. But don’t you dare say you’re wary around strange men, because then you’re saying all men are rapists, you man-hater!” The only logical conclusion is that some men want to be rapists without the inconvenience of women being upset about it.
And I bet he does so much activism against against foot-binding in his spare time.
So he admits that the woman was in danger? Was she also in danger of a “false” accusation, or is he admitting that she could have been raped? And yet this story is supposed to prove how dangerous this all is for men? *flips table*
i thought it was long-term monogamous pair-bonds plus occasional outside liaisons, but the book I read that is was published at least ten years ago and may be outdated.
@Robert, yeah, I can’t hear the word “mudskipper” without thinking of that song.
I’ve had sex while drunk, and occasionally it was consensual (e.g. mutual heavy flirting all night and very clear where it was going to lead) and sometimes it wasn’t (me giving signals for hours ahead that I wasn’t up for it, signals ignored). Same thing with friends.
The patterns I’ve seen with date rape:
1. It is clear the other person wants sex, and I’ve said no, we’re just friends, when are you going to go, etc.
2. Other person apparently backs off at this point.
3. They wait until they’re in a situation where they can get you alone
4. Date rape.
Alternative to 1 and 2: date rapist doesn’t associate much with the target until 3. YMMV.
Another element is, once you’re drunk, you can be drunk for hours because that liver only processes a certain amount of ethanol an hour (hence people being successfully prosecuted for drink driving the morning after, even though they haven’t had alcohol for 6 hours). And weight-for-weight, women process alcohol slower than men. So if a person is blind drunk, they can be blind drunk for a few hours (see the high profile rape cases of teenagers mentioned on this blog).
So I believe it is possible for at least a subset of people to have consensual drunk sex. But in that situation, no-one is going to argue rape, because *it wasn’t*: the sex was *welcomed* and no boundaries were crossed.
The drunk driver argument fails also on the grounds that at least one driver wasn’t drink driving with the intent to get into a crash (i.e. they didn’t consent to the collision). So the whole “analogy” fails on the fact that the main premises aren’t remotely alike the drunk sex example(s).
I’d call him a stupid MRA but that’s an oxymoron.
Did he actually say the words “Tyrannosaurus Sex” or was my brain hallucinating something amusing in order to combat the stupidity coming out of the computer speakers?
I didn’t watch, but I am given to understand that he said Tarantosaurus Sex–because it’s his name, you see, and he’s so very witty and sexual and oh my god my brain melted.
FTFY. They like us being upset just fine. It’s any potential for stopping or inhibiting rapists they don’t want.
Tarantosaurus Sex – what, beady little eyes, scaly hide and breath that stinks of rotten meat?
I could well believe it.
RE: tedthefed
I understand what you mean. I want to add that I meant that in a consensual situation, it’s unlikely that one would happen, not that a lack of a complaint = consent. It’s a “Poodles are dogs,” not “dogs are poodles,” situation, if that makes any sense. It is depressingly common for a nonconsensual situation to end with no complaint; not so much for a consensual situation to end in a false complaint. Taranto seemed to be making the argument that two drunk people having sex consensually would necessarily be raping each other; he doesn’t seem to understand that CONSENT is the issue, not drunkenness on its own.
Wait, I was ninjaed by Kiwi Girl. Never mind.
RE: emilygoddess
i thought it was long-term monogamous pair-bonds plus occasional outside liaisons, but the book I read that is was published at least ten years ago and may be outdated.
I admit to being slightly dubious, just because I read somewhere that the majority of human societies have been non-monogamous, but seeing as I don’t have a citation for that either, I figure it’s kind of a moot point unless a more knowledgeable Boobzer pops up.
Tarantosaurus sex – because that’s what the ladies like. An unattractive, stupid, hate-filled little reptile with ideas about sex and gender straight out of the Jurraisic.
I notice that when Men’s Rape Apologists make this claim, they never want to discuss who’s fault it would be if they were too drunk to escape and another man raped them.
What men like Taranto are really saying is, “Women are fair game”.
Trigger warning
A friend of mine was raped by the woman who promised to get him home safely after his birthday party where everyone was pouring him drinks. She’d tried to get with him all night, but he kept turning her down. She’d tried to get him alone at the party once he was drunk, but since it was his party, she couldn’t manage it. Despite the fact that it was obvious the next day that she knew what she was going to do before they ever left the party and despite the fact he could barely get to the car without help, he blamed himself. When MRAssholes claim to care about male victims, then equate being drunk with consent, I remember my friend.
Oh! Kittehs! I’m working on the roughs for your art right now! I should have something emailed to you in an hour or two.
Lea Tapp, I’m so sorry that happened to your friend. It’s disgusting that MRAs would consider that consent.
The puncturing ovaries with needles thing seems to be reference to egg donation or some other fertility related medical treatment.
Erica:
I heard the same thing! According to Jezebel, Taranto said something along the lines of:
“…and that women aren’t equal to men because some of them have ovaries that must be “punctured” to procreate.”
Near as I can figure, Taranto’s either: 1. Really confused about how babies are made and thinks the sperm have to actually “puncture” the ovary or 2. Is referring to some IVF technique or fertility treatment or 3. Thinks the egg “punctures” the ovary each month during a woman’s cycle.
In any case, it’s a big ol’ stinkin’ pile of wrong.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4556312
I think it’s totally possible to have consensual drunk sex, but drunk/sober isn’t a binary thing. I’ve hooked up drunk many times when I was younger, but I still knew what I was doing and wanted to do it.
One can probably make a good case for not having sex when drunk as a general rule, but I don’t think anyone really wants to argue that drunk sex is automatically rape? (Correct me if I’m wrong.) What people want to argue, right, is that sex with someone who’s SO drunk that zie doesn’t really know what zie’s doing anymore is rape?
It gets a bit weird when people go on about how totally normal it is to have sex while drunk, at least among younger people, and yeah… that IS common, but normally the people involved are “party-drunk” rather than “blackout-drunk”.
Did some googling and found an article from Psychology Today (yeah I know) saying:
So when considering the question, did (monogamous or mostly monogamous) marriage come along primarily to benefit men, or was it a joint venture between men and women, I think this would be evidence towards it benefiting men. Polygamy is great for the men who benefit from it, but considering that the natural ratio of male to female births is close to 1:1, this results in a surplus of men being out of luck. Monogamy and marriage allow more men to pass along their genes and “own” women and children.
However, it could also be considered advantageous to women. Depends on whether being one of several “wives” was better or worse than monogamy.
But from this data at least, it doesn’t look like there have historically been a significant number of human cultures where anyone can openly mate with anyone else.
What’s so hard for people to understand about this? A drunk guy rapes someone. He and he alone is responsible for the crime. The other party has no culpability at all. That poor person mainly happened to be in the vicinity of the rapist at that time. We don’t blame murder victims for being killed, so why do we blame rape victims.
Note: “We” in this case means society in general.
That is a most excellent screenshot, David. It just begs to be used as a male privilege meme.
What is it with people thinking getting consent for sex is so different from getting consent for any other activity? If two people are hanging out and one person wants sushi for lunch, but the other person really doesn’t, what semi-moral person would ever think it was okay to force-feed them sushi? I mean, even if they agree to go a sushi restaurant in the first place, they could still decide to order the tempura or udon. Similarly, going to a theme park doesn’t mean you automatically want to ride the most extreme roller coaster there. Heck, you could go there with no intention of doing anything but circling the lazy river the whole time.
Why is it only when it comes to sex that men are supposedly incapable of nuance?
RE: Dvarghundspossen
Seeing as how my husband’s old arena was a bar, I’m pretty sure he had plenty of consensual and buzzed sex throughout his life. And I know I’ve had a drink or two and then carted him off to bed and everyone involved had a great time.
The problem isn’t so much people being drunk as they are taking advantage of someone’s drunkenness. Someone who is drunk is less likely to understand what’s going on, less likely to be able to fight back effectively, and more likely to believe bullshit.
Basically, if you know someone wouldn’t be doing something sober, you shouldn’t try and get them to do it when they’re drunk. If you’re unsure someone would be doing something sober, then you shouldn’t try and get them to do it when they’re drunk.
The problem comes that then a bunch of these asshats come and kick up a ton of smoke and mirrors: “what if they only consent when they’re drunk? I can’t NOT bang someone!” “what if they’re BOTH drunk; they’d be raping each other!” “FEMINISTS TAKING AWAY MY DRUNK SEX”
Nobody’s saying that people can’t have fun drunk sex. The problem is that people take advantage of people, knowing they’re in a vulnerable state, and use this “misunderstanding” jazz to cover up predators.
RE “puncturing” ovaries
This means that women can’t be equal to men because all men are totes fertile and able to reproduce without any help, right?
RE: Amnesia
Why is it only when it comes to sex that men are supposedly incapable of nuance?
Because it offers cover to predators and plausible deniability. Some blogger made a series of really useful posts about how assholes of all varieties like to hang in what they know society will call “gray areas” and then use them to loophole for all they’re worth.
LBT has it totally right; the conflation is intentional. Rapists need that grey area, and they WILL continue to jump up and shout and yell and misdirect, because it keeps them in business.
wow, just seeing the title makes me know I’m going to need a buttload of brain bleach. And I’m still foolishly reading because …i have no idea why. I guess cuz curiosity killed
the catMarie.::finally grabs ahold of better judgement and decides not to watch the video::
@wordsp1nner
Um, wow. Too much work to back up his claim with assfacts? That’s a new level of lazy misogynist :/