The first major debate of 2007 in the feminist blogosphere has broken out over this article by Liz Funk in Women’s E-News: Underage Women Sidle up to Barroom Risks. (It also appeared here at Alternet.) It’s a rather awkward title for a rather unremarkable piece about the apparently common practice among New York bars of admitting underage women in order to attract paying male customers. Funk suggests that women who accept the offers to get in for free (or get in underage) face the risk of getting raped as a consequence.
An extraordinary number of feminist bloggers have responded with considerable ire. (I first read about Funk’s article at Feministe, and Jill has compiled a list of other feminist responses.) The chief complaint, of course, is that Funk is engaging in classic victim-blaming. That victim blaming is made especially clear in the header from the Alternet version:
Bars and clubs often pay young, pretty women to attract more business. For owners, that means a boost in image and revenue. For women, it means an increased risk of harassment, or even rape.
It’s a classic way of writing about sexual violence; the notion of male responsibility and culpability is entirely absent. In Liz Funk’s formula, intoxication equals vulnerability, and vulnerability increases the chances of getting raped; therefore, a woman who gets drunk is at least partially responsible for what happens to her. What’s entirely missing is a discourse of male accountability.
I haven’t had a drink in eight and a half years. In my twenties, however, I spent a fair amount of time in bars and clubs, and did my share of drinking. As someone in recovery today, I don’t enjoy being the only sober person in a social situation, so I tend to stay away from those environments these days. But I understand the seductive appeal of clubs very well. Darkness, loud music, sexual desire and booze can be an enticing combination.
But what troubled me even in my youth was the widespread notion among my peers that alcohol had a vital role to play in negotiating sexual consent. When I was in college, my male friends made it clear that they saw alcohol as having two primary functions: they drank it to increase their confidence, and they wanted women to drink it in the hopes that it would turn a “No” into a “Yes.” A few drinks, we all knew, could turn shy lads into boisterous extroverts; in the same way, as in the words of a recent country hit, “tequila makes her clothes come off.” Getting a woman drunk was the shortcut to a “green light” for sexual activity.
I loved alcohol because it did relieve me of my inhibitions. It did make me — at least in my own mind — smooth, charming, and attractive. It quieted, if only for a short while, my self-doubts and anxieties. My best memories of drinking are from my high school and college years, before my problem got more serious, before my behavior started landing me in ERs and locked wards. I can remember buying wine coolers (Bartles and Jaymes) and Lucky Vodka from the one store in Berkeley guaranteed to sell to underage students. (It’s gone now, folks, quite possibly for this very reason.) I have many happy, if mildly sordid, memories of frosh parties in the dorms. It’s difficult to imagine having had as good a time at eighteen without the help of alcohol.
One of the most important tasks of the men’s movement is anti-rape work. And one key problem in anti-rape work is designing programs that are realistic about alcohol consumption among young men and women. It’s hard enough, after all, teaching a group of high school and college-age men about negotiating consent and setting healthy sexual boundaries when sober; adding booze to the mix increases the challenge exponentially. Obviously, the key point that we need to make, over and over again, is that alcohol consumption doesn’t vitiate the responsibility to respect other human beings. Alcohol, while perhaps an intensely enjoyable part of the social world of the young, ought not be used as a tool to diminish the capacity of women (or men) to set and maintain boundaries.
The reality is that young people often use their own drinking in order to gain the courage to do what they are too scared to do sober, whether that’s asking someone for their number or going to bed with a casual acquaintance. Alcohol also provides a convenient excuse for “bad” behavior; just as small children claim “It doesn’t count, I had my fingers crossed”, their college aged brothers and sisters can say “Oh, I was drunk, it doesn’t count.” A healthy relationship with alcohol is one where booze ceases to be either a tool or an excuse — and it is asking a great deal from the young to expect them to drink without either of those in mind.
Alcohol plays a notoriously important role in sexual assault. Those of us who care about young people, however, need to be very clear that drinking does not excuse sexual violence. Drinking is obviously not an excuse for bad driving, otherwise we wouldn’t have penalties against operating a car under the influence. If a drunk driver killed a drunk pedestrian who was legally in a crosswalk, the blame would rightly fall solely on the driver. Our culture doesn’t blame folks for getting run over by drunk drivers; we blame the one operating the car and rightly so. As with driving, so with sexual consent. We can acknowledge that young people will drink, often to excess — but we can send a clear message that intoxication doesn’t vitiate accountability.
Personally, one of the hardest things about getting sober was learning how to handle social situations without the crutch of intoxicants. Forcing myself to take risks without relying on liquid courage was not an easy thing — but like most difficult things in life, it has proved to be well worth it. Every once in a while, before I have to do something challenging or difficult, I wish I could have a quick shot to bolster my confidence. But I’m not willing to pay that high a price.
Waiting for the rape apologists in 3…2…1…
I found this article interesting because, even though I am 19 (20 in about a month), I have never been carded while out with my boyfriend. If he goes up to a bar in a restaurant and I am next to him, the bartender usually asks me what I want as well. This is especially true if I’m dressed in the right clothes, like my office outfits, and I come across with the right attitude. Now, I confess that I have indulged in the occasional underage drink while out with him. My mom never forbid the consumption of alcohol, but rather introduced wine to us in tiny doses as kids (or diluted it with water). So it never really was a “forbidden fruit” to me. I’ve never had a desire to get totally smashed.
You know me well enough to know that I’m not much of a party girl, so I’ve never drank with the intent of boosting my confidence or appearing more outgoing. But I do think that Feministe is right. And if I’m ever in that situation, it would be wise to remember Jill’s argument.
No apologies for rape, but statistically speaking rape is a Red Herring in the context of “ladies’ nights.” For all of the women who take advantage of the special perks offered under these promotional events, the number of rapes is infinitesimal and statistically insignificant. There are probably a lot more people – women and men – hurt by the direct effects of the alcohol, accidents, etc.
Hugo, I hear you re. the inherent exploitation of women in order to increase the number of paying male customers with these promotional events, but if you’re going to ignore the exploitation of men under these scenarios then IMO you’re once again practicing selective indignation.
You wrote: “It’s a classic way of writing about sexual violence; the notion of male responsibility and culpability is entirely absent. In Liz Funk’s formula, intoxication equals vulnerability, and vulnerability increases the chances of getting raped; therefore, a woman who gets drunk is at least partially responsible for what happens to her. What’s entirely missing is a discourse of male accountability.”(emphasis mine)
Frankly, I don’t see this as “victim blaming,” I see this as 1) honest, candid common sense, and 2) a lot less patronizing than your men-must-take-all-responsibility-for-women’s-safety approach. What next, assign all women chaperones? If I were a woman I’d be considerably PO-ed at your apparent low regard for women’s ability to act responsibly and take care of themselves.
You continue: “If a drunk driver killed a drunk pedestrian who was legally in a crosswalk, the blame would rightly fall solely on the driver. Our culture doesn’t blame folks for getting run over by drunk drivers; we blame the one operating the car and rightly so. As with driving, so with sexual consent. We can acknowledge that young people will drink, often to excess — but we can send a clear message that intoxication doesn’t vitiate accountability.”
Under the above scenario, if the person who supplied the drunk driver with booze could be identified, then likely (and please, you attorneys here correct me if I’m wrong) they would be the ones held ultimately responsible. So how about placing responsibility where it belongs, with everybody: On the women who drink to excess and should know better, on the men who take advantage of them, and on the bar/club owners who exploit women and men to make a greasy buck.
But then, you’d have to admit that women are fully-capable adults who can actually take care of themselves, something you seem loath to do.
Welcome back!!
I like the drunk driving/drunk pedestrian analogy. Never heard it before, and it’s a good one.
Mr. Bad, for that analogy to work, the raped women would have had to have given her rapist alchol, or was in some way responsible for her to be drunk. It doesn’t work.
More to the point, even in the pedestrian was drunk but still in the crosswalk, we still wouldn’t blame him/her for getting hit by a drunk driver.
Saying that I have every right not to be raped, no matter would I do, and that I have no culpability in my own rape, is not being condescending.
Mr. Bad, I 100% agree with you here:
“So how about placing responsibility where it belongs, with everybody: On the women who drink to excess and should know better, on the men who take advantage of them, and on the bar/club owners who exploit women and men to make a greasy buck.”
However, I think it unfair of you to suggest that Hugo does not hold women accountable. In his Women’s Studies class, he challenges us to not label ourselves as victims. I remember this especially in regards to our sexual choices with men. He said, “I don’t see the gun pointed at your head.” (Well, usually that is not the case). Ultimately, it is our choice to drink, just as it is our choice to have sex, regardless of how much pressure is put on us by men or others. And women who choose to drink at parties can – and should – be aware that they could be taken advantage of while drunk. I agree with you there. But Hugo has never suggested that women can’t take care of themselves, nor does he refuse to hold women accountable for their choices.
“Frankly, I don’t see this as “victim blaming,†I see this as 1) honest, candid common sense, and 2) a lot less patronizing than your men-must-take-all-responsibility-for-women’s-safety approach. What next, assign all women chaperones? If I were a woman I’d be considerably PO-ed at your apparent low regard for women’s ability to act responsibly and take care of themselves.”
You’re out at a bar with your friends. You’re a man. Some random dude walks up to you, starts a conversation, then punches you in the face and walks away.
Would it be “honest, candid common sense” and “a lot less patronizing” to suggest that you should take some responsibility for getting punched, because you had the audacity to go out in public? What if you were drunk, and some dude walked up and punched you? Still kind of your fault?
Of course not. It’s the fault of the man who punched you. Why is there a different standard for rape?
Further, women are aware that we can be “taken advantage of.” Those of us who read statistics are also aware that we’re a whole lot more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone we know, rather than by a stranger in a bar. There is no way to prevent yourself from being raped. The difference between a situation where you might be raped and one in which you won’t is a single factor: the presence of a rapist.
“Under the above scenario, if the person who supplied the drunk driver with booze could be identified, then likely (and please, you attorneys here correct me if I’m wrong) they would be the ones held ultimately responsible.”
But would the victim be responsible in any way? Does anyone lecture pedestrians on being so stupid as to walk down the street when we all know full well that there are drunk drivers out there?
I don’t love the drunk driver example because most of the time vehicular homicides are accidents, even if they’re accidents which are caused by alcohol consumption. Rape isn’t an accident. Rape is a purposeful violent act, in which the rapist may be emboldened or facilitated by alcohol, but not one where the rapist is simply making a mistake that has tragic results.
p.s. love love LOVE the new blog design. Looks gorgeous! And great post, btw.
I think part of the confusion is over the term “rape.” Are we talking about forcible rape, or voluntary sex with someone too drunk to genuinely have consented to the act? If the former, then the driver/pedestrian analogy holds, and alcohol is no excuse. If the latter, and we have a sober man taking advantage of a drunk woman, same deal. But if both parties are equally (or comparably) drunk, it seems a bit odd to argue that her inebriation negates her consent but not his inebration does not negate his.
What floored me about the other threads were all the women dismissing the whole concept of Ladies’ Night–the idea that a bar is using drunk women as bait for male patrons is OK as long as we’re getting free booze out of it? Not following. But then I can afford full-price drinks.
What about involuntary intoxication? Surely if a drunk woman is responsible for her behavior, she’s responsible whether or not she intended to get drunk, or whether or not she intended to drink alcohol in the first place.
Jill said: “You’re out at a bar with your friends. You’re a man. Some random dude walks up to you, starts a conversation, then punches you in the face and walks away.”
“Would it be “honest, candid common sense†and “a lot less patronizing†to suggest that you should take some responsibility for getting punched, because you had the audacity to go out in public? What if you were drunk, and some dude walked up and punched you? Still kind of your fault?”
This is not only an inaccurate analogy, it’s patently ridiculous. Are you seriously trying to tell us that women randomly get raped in bars at ladies’ night events in public, in front of all the patrons and employees? Melodramatic – dare I say hysterical – characterizations like this cheapen legitimate claims of rape and make feminists look like lunatics.
A better analogy would be if f I walked onto a construction site and wandered into an unfenced restricted area without a hard hat and subsequently get conked on the head and suffered a concussion. Sure, it’s the construction company’s fault for not adequately fencing and policing their restricted areas, but it’s also my fault for knowingly putting myself in a risky situation. Come on, give women some credit for being fully-functioning adults and thus able to understand that getting wasted is not very responsible and safe behavior.
As for the drunk person in the crosswalk, it’s quite similar. For all we know the drunk was crossing against the walk signal, and they stepped out in front of the other drunk who just happened to have a green light. IMO it’s both drunks’ fault and I suspect Hugo would agree (as long the pedestrian were a man).
Jill, you also said: “There is no way to prevent yourself from being raped. The difference between a situation where you might be raped and one in which you won’t is a single factor: the presence of a rapist.”
More crazy talk. It’s like me claiming that just because there are con artists out there then it follows that ‘I can’t prevent myself from being conned.’ Completely absurd. For crying out loud, get a grip, take a class in self-defense and learn to avoid risky situations instead of relying on other people to take care of you. You seem to think that we should all treat women like they’re little more than children with no common sense. Heh, welcome to the 1700s again.
Mermaid said: “However, I think it unfair of you to suggest that Hugo does not hold women accountable. In his Women’s Studies class, he challenges us to not label ourselves as victims.” etc.
Mermade: While I can appreciate that Hugo might say such things in his WS classes, I have never taken his classes nor would I likely ever choose to. I can and do only respond to what he writes here, and in this post – and most all others of this type – he makes no suggestion that women take responsibility for drinking responsibly. He exclusively puts the onus on men – very likely equally- or more-drunk men at that – to behave responsibly. Therefore, given that both the men and women are equally likely to be under the influence, voluntarily so as mythago points out, he’s treating the men as responsible adults and the women as little more than children who cannot control themselves and otherwise be responsible, both before and after the drinking starts.
IMO this is deeply insulting and patronizing, but hey, that’s just me.
both the men and women are equally likely to be under the influence, voluntarily
I ask again, why does “voluntarily” have anything to do with anything? If a woman is capable of consenting meaningfully to sex while drunk, presumably that’s the case whether her intoxication was voluntary or involuntary. You’re just as drunk on three intentionally-taken shots as if somebody spiked your Red Bull.
I don’t want to get too far into this, as it is a bit off-topic, but,..
were a drunk pedestrian legally present in a crosswalk struck and killed by a sober driver, the sober driver *might be held liable, but the accident would have been recorded as an alohol-related fatality.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Oriscus
Wine-pusher
Austin, TX
PS – Hugo, I’m a bit concerned that it was not until the end of your post that you acknowledged the effect of alcohol on *women’s confidence, albeit expressed in disapprovative terms: “whether that’s asking someone for their number or going to bed with a casual acquaintance.” (asking for someone’s phone number is presumed to be a sexual overture, and hence, is presumed to be a hostile action unless and until approved by the recipient of such attention). So long as our social arrangments frequently present sexual interaction as an assault/defence scenario, alcohol and other chemicals will remain necessary as excuses for willing intercourse whenever socially disaproved-of.
I have read much of the blogospheric discussion of this article, and I must admit that I find it a bit baffling. Take your summary of the article:
“In Liz Funk’s formula, intoxication equals vulnerability, and vulnerability increases the chances of getting raped; therefore, a woman who gets drunk is at least partially responsible for what happens to her. What’s entirely missing is a discourse of male accountability.”
I don’t see how on earth anything after the “therefore” follows from the first part of that sentence. And I don’t see how you can get anything but the first part of the sentence from what you quoted. Funk is arguing that certain behaviors raise the risk that some state of affairs will obtain, but that’s purely descriptive. To use more extreme example, going to synagogue in Nazi Germany vastly increased the risk that one would be harassed by the Gestapo. That’s simply and undeniably true.
What I don’t see is the leap to normativity, where the rape victim or the Jew is somehow to be BLAMED for the risky behavior. Imposing risk or engaging in risky behavior is sometimes blameworthy, but is neither necessary nor sufficient for blameworthiness. I see no warrant, certainly not in the quoted section, for ascribing the view to Funke that she thinks that these women are blameworthy for engaging (perhaps unknowingly) in behavior that is risky (And there is obviously the further complication that risky behavior that is risky because of the free choices of others is often in different moral category than something that that is merely the result of our own free choices, like smoking).
In fact, I see this article as a criticism of the night club owners. One is morally responsible for the evil that results from situations one deliberately cultivates, has easy control over, where it is not unfair to demand that they change and could change with only trivial penalty to oneself. You could argue that Funk should have made more of the wrongness of the action and the evil of the character of the rapists and harassers. Perhaps, but does that really need to be said?
I think what is going on here is an equivocation; one that those who criticize such women are also happy to make. You are equivocating between two senses of “responsibility.” The first is a merely descriptive or sociological sense where one is “responsible” for the consequences that one’s behavior is causally related to. The second is the moral sense where one is responsible in the sense that one is morally blameworthy for the consequences of one’s actions. One cannot, and should not, automatically move from the first to the second. I don’t see any reason to think that Funk makes that move.
“You are equivocating between two senses of “responsibility.†The first is a merely descriptive or sociological sense where one is “responsible†for the consequences that one’s behavior is causally related to. The second is the moral sense where one is responsible in the sense that one is morally blameworthy for the consequences of one’s actions.”
But if this was what the article was about, the story would be exploring how men who frequent ladies-night events, where young, underage women are given free drinks, are more likely to be tempted to misbehave – sometimes to the point of criminal activity. The article would then outline how men can avoid such precarious activities and temptations by 1) avoiding ladies-night events 2) avoiding underage women who are drinking and 3) avoid drinking themselves.
The problem isn’t with young women being out in public, drunk or not. It’s with men who do not have moral qualms about taking advantage of vulnerability (youth or drunkeness) in order to find sexual release/fulfillment.
A major issue in the original article (to me) would seem to be “underage,†but it’s not clear whether we’re talking “Under 18†or “Under 21.†The latter is a controversial, arbitrary, and uniquely American number that has not even been in place for much of American history. The former is still somewhat arbitrary (and well above
I’m going to try to refrain from getting into the conflations of rape and consentual sex. But I think we could solve the issue of mild social drinking vs mental incapacitation quite easily if we (as a society) really wanted to.
States have specified a BAC level for intoxicated driving, why not one for female sexual consent? Then men could carry portable Breathalyzers and know whether the consent was valid or not. We’ve still got the (possibly drunk) guy acting as the parental / chaperone / authority figure “Sorry, little girl, you blew a 0.22%, so take your tongue out of my throat so I can call a cab for you,†but at least he has some objective guidance on how to balance his conflicting roles as sexual initiator and sexual protector.
Am I the only one who thinks that if men universially refused sexual contact to women who had consumed any alcohol within the prceeding 8 hours that we’d have an epidemic of sexually frustrated WOMEN?
Now, to the “vulnerability due to age or alcohol†question…I don’t really know how to answer that. At one extreme, a rich man who sees a starving teen girl in Thailand and gives her bread only after using her sexually is clearly a predator. But the other extreme would require men to have sex only with women who were older, taller (see Hugo on “bigger guysâ€), richer, smarter, etc. with them. The number of women eager for sex with “inferior†men seems pretty small.
It also occurs to me that perhaps these young women could drink in all-female house parties or at lesbian venues if heterosexual contact was repugnant to them. But that takes a lot of the “social†out of “social drinking,†doesn’t it?
And I do think that (and the law, if I’m not mistaken) there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary substance consumption. First of all, “involuntary†is non-consentual and hence also wrong, even if no sex occurs. But many women enjoy having a few drinks and fooling around, or smoking a joint
For the record, I’m vehemently against actual rape, rarely go to bars, and a 29 year old male virgin.
Mr. Bad, by your logic, if I were walking home alone after dark (which I do frequently, as I teach night classes) and I got mugged/raped/whatever, then it would be partly my responsibility. Because what is a woman doing out walking through shady neighborhoods near a college campus after dark anyway? Nevermind that I need to get home and walking is the most economically feasible option. I should have had my husband or someone else with me (except that he has to stay home with the kids while I’m at work), because a woman alone is just asking for it. It doesn’t really matter whether I’m drunk or not, the fact of my being out alone at night in a rough neighborhood when I should know better means that I am somewhat responsible. Or what if I’m out with friends and someone I know rape/robs me. Well, that’s my fault for trusting someone that I had no way of knowing was not trustworthy. So basically I’m screwed no matter what (and not in a good way) because I’m a woman and I have the audacity to go out alone or with groups of friends–even male friends.
Really, whether someone is drunk or not, if there’s no consent, then there is rape. I realize that sometimes the lines get fuzzy when both parties are incapable of giving meaningful consent, and consenting and regretting does not equal rape, but that argument is made of straw and you know it.
1. I missed “Bars and clubs often pay young, pretty women to attract more business.” I also object to the owners (assumed, like pornographers and pimps, to be male)[1] doing this.
As a college man, I noticed a flyer from a gay club searching for male cage dancers posted at my “Bible belt” university. I didn’t respond, not only because I didn’t want to degrade myself, but also because realized that the owners could not guarantee me a completely safe, harassment-free experience.
I didn’t spend much time wishing / campaigning for a perfect world, where all cage dancing club owners were caring, “family-values†people with a deep commitment to my welfare and all cage dancing club patrons were gentle, warm, friendly people who loved me unconditionally and cared about my soul, my feelings, and my success. I just accepted that cage dancing clubs are not Sunday Schools and declined the opportunity.
So I think it is reasonable and good for the author to spend her space raising young women’s awareness about the risks inherent in this type of employment rather than calling for a utopian world where sex work is completely free of harassment.
2. I agree with Hugo that using alcohol as an excuse is bad. I wish that everybody could come to terms with their sexual agency; not just “party girls” whose excuse is alcohol but also fundamentalists whose excuse is romance or entertainment when they “struggle with” premarital sex, etc.
3. I love Hugo’s “intoxication doesn’t vitiate accountability.†But I think we need to apply this to both genders: if a tipsy young woman goes to bed with a man (absent Hugo’s “gun to the head” or similar), then she has to realize that she is accountable for her choice, which began with the choice to consume enough alcohol to affect her reasoning.
This sort of thing was actually made quite clear to me as a boy growing up. Alcohol does contribute to us doing things we wouldn’t normally do, whether getting into fights or engaging in sexual activities or breaking things. That’s why we need to be careful about how much and where we drink.
[1]Notwithstanding Christine Hefner, Heidi Fleiss’s active recruitment of “employees,†etc.
Run over by a car?
Punched in the face?
Are you sure that you are doing sex right?
I just accepted that cage dancing clubs are not Sunday Schools
No employer in any customer-service business is ever going to guarantee you a ‘completely harassment-free environment’. Why would you hold a strip club to an expectation that you wouldn’t impose on Starbucks or Nordstrom?
And I do think that (and the law, if I’m not mistaken) there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary substance consumption.
I would like to see the law that says it’s only to have sex with a drugged or intoxicated person if they didn’t mean to get wasted.
I’m still waiting for somebody to explain to me why the ‘voluntary’ thing is an issue. Let’s take a situation where a young, very drunk woman agrees to go home and have sex with a man she meets at the bar. Why does it matter whether she got drunk on purpose? Either she has agency while drunk or she doesn’t. You’re not less drunk because the alcohol was slipped into your drink without your knowledge. (And is a person who did not intend to get drunk, but did intend to drink, ‘voluntarily’ intoxicated?)
But Q Girl, the article WAS about how night club owners were producing a dangerous environment. As I said, the article didn’t need to belabor the point that men are the ones doing the raping and harassing and that obviously if they stopped doing this then there wouldn’t be a problem; it is obvious. The interesting thing about the article was about how a certain policy, designed to maximize profits for club owners, is producing risky environment.
Night club owners can’t (generally) prevent men from stop being drunk (or remaining sober, as is more often the case) and then harassing or raping women, but they can change the policy that makes this behavior more likely. Obviously, stressing the dangerous effects of the policy are a way to get people to think about changing it.
“No employer in any customer-service business is ever going to guarantee you a ‘completely harassment-free environment’. Why would you hold a strip club to an expectation that you wouldn’t impose on Starbucks or Nordstrom?” – Mythago
It seems that there are people here that expect just that, as unrealistic as it is.
“The problem isn’t with young women being out in public, drunk or not. It’s with men who do not have moral qualms about taking advantage of vulnerability (youth or drunkeness) in order to find sexual release/fulfillment.” -Q-Grrl
Let’s see. Someone in their late thirties, worldly, eventually convinces another ambivalent partner, after several rounds of drinks, into engaging in sexual intercourse. The other person here is much younger, far more intoxicated in the purpose that the younger partner would give in and not be as resistant to invitations to sex. I assume you would probably object stronger if the younger counterpart was female instead of male. But it happened to myself a few years ago. She happened, with me, to turn a “No, I really don’t want to” into a “Yes.”
“The article would then outline how men can avoid such precarious activities and temptations by 1) avoiding ladies-night events 2) avoiding underage women who are drinking and 3) avoid drinking themselves.” -Q-Grrl
With no advice for women in turn, correct?
“Am I the only one who thinks that if men universially refused sexual contact to women who had consumed any alcohol within the prceeding 8 hours that we’d have an epidemic of sexually frustrated WOMEN?” – K
No, you’re not the only one.
KS said: “Mr. Bad, by your logic, if I were walking home alone after dark (which I do frequently, as I teach night classes) and I got mugged/raped/whatever, then it would be partly my responsibility. Because what is a woman doing out walking through shady neighborhoods near a college campus after dark anyway?”
Yes, KS, if you were knowingly walking home in a dangerous neighborhood when you had the option of a safer way to get home, then indeed you are partly to blame for being mugged. Like the women who knowingly put themselves into the risky environment of a ‘ladies’ night’ event; such events are distinctly different than simply going to a bar or club and thus represent a distinctly riskier version of ‘a night at the club.’
You continue: “Nevermind that I need to get home and walking is the most economically feasible option.”
You have made the conscious choice to trade safety for economy, therefore, IMO you need to take at least some responsibility for the consequences of your choice. This is not to say that the mugger is not to blame – she or he is – but that you are partially responsible, just like the original article argues.
“I should have had my husband or someone else with me (except that he has to stay home with the kids while I’m at work), because a woman alone is just asking for it.”
In fact the data clearly show that it is men who are more at risk of being victims of violent crime than women are. Mugging is a human issue, not a gender one.
“It doesn’t really matter whether I’m drunk or not, the fact of my being out alone at night in a rough neighborhood when I should know better means that I am somewhat responsible.”
Yes.
“Or what if I’m out with friends and someone I know rape/robs me. Well, that’s my fault for trusting someone that I had no way of knowing was not trustworthy. So basically I’m screwed no matter what (and not in a good way) because I’m a woman and I have the audacity to go out alone or with groups of friends–even male friends.”
The above is a Strawman argument, and in the context of ‘ladies’ night’ events rape is a Red Herring.
mythago asked: “I’m still waiting for somebody to explain to me why the ‘voluntary’ thing is an issue. “ The answer is so obvious it pains me to think that an attorney has to ask this, and knowing you myth it seems you’re once again simply trolling, but Ok I’ll bite – here goes: When something is voluntary it means that no coercion has taken place and thus the person is (or at least should be) responsible for their own behavior.
“It’s a classic way of writing about sexual violence; the notion of male responsibility and culpability is entirely absent. In Liz Funk’s formula, intoxication equals vulnerability, and vulnerability increases the chances of getting raped; therefore, a woman who gets drunk is at least partially responsible for what happens to her. What’s entirely missing is a discourse of male accountability.”
I think you’re making quite a leap there. If I were to advise, “Don’t get drunk and then pass out in a dark alley with fifty-dollar bills hanging out of your pockets, or you’ll likely wind up getting robbed/mugged/worse,” that doesn’t excuse the behavior of the person doing the robbing or mugging. It’s just giving common-sense advice on how you can lower the chances of something bad happening to you.
“But I understand the seductive appeal of clubs very well. Darkness, loud music, sexual desire and booze can be an enticing combination.”
Maybe I’m lucky, because none of those elements of the bar/booze atmosphere strike me in any way as appealing. I don’t drink and I never have and so I have to be careful to watch what I say because there’s always the chance that I’ll be accused of being holier-than-thou, but I honestly don’t understand what’s so attractive about paying a decent amount of money to lose your faculties, throw up, and wake up the next day with a pounding headache (and maybe a venereal disease).
boy genteel
Stop violence against women AND men.
http://www.safe4all.org
mythago:
“No employer in any customer-service business is ever going to guarantee you a ‘completely harassment-free environment’. Why would you hold a strip club to an expectation that you wouldn’t impose on Starbucks or Nordstrom?”
myth,
I write for readers who:
1. Possess at least a middle-school level of reading comprehension
2. Are free from developmental disorders such as autistic spectrum disorders.
These readers have the ability to recognize hyperbole and other common rhetorical devices.
People with manifest cognitive and/or developmental deficits are very vulnerable to exploitation and need guardians. Most of the women that I know are capable of assessing risks and making decisions in their own interest and therefore are capable of living as free adults without guardians.
Nordstrom employees have a possibility of sexual harassment or workplace violence, but neither is inherent in the nature of the work. People who accept jobs as sex workers have an inherent expectation of sexual harassment, and men who join the infantry have an inherent expectation of being shot at.
Maybe this will be clearer:
“I understood that cage dancing, due to the nature of the work and the environment of the type of establishments that offer it, has an inherently high probability of very severe harassment. I understood that cage dancing club owners, being in a seamy corner of the sex industry, are not and cannot be held to the same sexual-harassment expectations as mainstream (non-sex) employers.
I didn’t want to accept the harassment that was virtually certain to occur, so I did not apply for the job.â€
These readers have the ability to recognize hyperbole and other common rhetorical devices.
Such readers are also capable of detecting petulance, no matter how many words you dress it up in or how careful you are to pretend you meant something more elegant than “Fuck you”.
Maybe this will be clearer: You wrote I didn’t respond, not only because I didn’t want to degrade myself, but also because realized that the owners could not guarantee me a completely safe, harassment-free experience.
There is a difference between avoiding a job where you feel the risk of harassment is not at a level acceptable to you, and insisting on a ‘completely safe, harassment-free experience.’ No employer for any customer-service position is going to promise you that you will be 100% safe and will never, ever be harassed in any way by a customer.
P.S.: don’t assume that “I applied for a job at a gay strip bar” puts you at the expertise pinnacle on the subject.
When something is voluntary it means that no coercion has taken place and thus the person is (or at least should be) responsible for their own behavior.
You’re still not answering the question. The argument is that a woman who is intoxicated is still capable of meaningfully consenting to sex. Assuming that is true, why should it matter how she got intoxicated?
Look at the first part of your argument: a vague ‘something’ is voluntary, therefore ‘no coercion has taken place’–odd use of the passive tense. What you seem to be saying is “If you get drunk on purpose, you’re at fault if you do something stupid.” Whether or not that is true, it is a different argument from the claim that being drunk does not prevent one from consenting to sex.
Take the example of four people who are all equally drunk, and all agree to go off and have sex with someone they just met at the bar. Person A has had alcohol before, expected to get drunk, and knew exactly what drinks she ordered. Person B planned to have a couple of drinks just to feel relaxed, but forgot to have lunch and so is unexpectedly but actually drunk. Person C had no idea that somebody spiked her “virgin” margarita. Person D didn’t either, and didn’t know that the person who put alcohol in his “nonalcoholic” drink is the one who he had sex with.
All four people are equally drunk, with different levels of intent in how they got there. Are you saying that A’s consent is perfectly meaningful, B’s may or may not be, C’s isn’t and D was raped? If so, that goes against the idea that ‘drunk is no excuse’. If all four are equally consenting, then we are saying it doesn’t matter if you were accidentally or intentionally given intoxicants.
I don’t think we would; men and women would just find ways to hook up without getting drunk. Though “any alcohol within the preceding 8 hours” is a bit extreme, no? Did I miss a quote where someone recommended that?
I’m not sure the point of this anecdote. Is it that the strawfeminist has no problem with this, but would if the genders were reversed? Or is it just to say “this happened to me, and I have no problem with it, so it’s all right for anyone”?
I think that woman’s behavior was reprehensible, just as it would be if the genders involved were different. I’m not going to tell you how you should feel about what happened, but I’ll point out that even if you’re perfectly fine with it, that doesn’t mean it’s not problematic behavior, nor that other people in similar situations aren’t entitled to feel differently than you.
Yes, myth, I was angry at you because I saw you disengenuously arguing with my hyperbole and intentionally missing the point.
“There is a difference between avoiding a job where you feel the risk of harassment is not at a level acceptable to you….”
Thank you, that was my point. And, further, I think the author was correct to inform young women about the risk of harassment inherent in these types of jobs rather than to try to take the harassment out of sex work (at least in this article).
I’m not bragging at my experience. I didn’t apply because I understood the risks and chose not to accept them. I hope that many underage women who read the article will make the same choice.
Jeff: I should have explained this. I brought in 8 hours from the FAA’s “8 hours bottle to throttle” rule for pilots. The reasoning is thus:
1. Rape is serious
2. Nobody will give me a maximum BAC for meaningful consent
(we pretty much all agree that “passed out” and “too drunk to talk” are not meaningful. But there is no consensus after that.)
Therefore, the only acceptable BAC standard is that for other serious activities, like aviation, namely, 0.0% and 8 hours since last drink.
Again, I’m kind of arguing to absurdity, but I do think rape is serious.
Why don’t those who wish to reduce rape define the BAC at which women should be forbidden from having sex because their consent becomes invalid?
myth: “You’re still not answering the question. The argument is that a woman who is intoxicated is still capable of meaningfully consenting to sex. Assuming that is true, why should it matter how she got intoxicated?”
myth,
The point is that people who intentionally consume alcohol accept responsibility for their subsequent actions and decisions. These actions may include:
* Fistfights
* Tattoos
* Gambling
* Committing sexual harassment on television
(See Joe Namath: http://youtube.com/watch?v=og2Nj6hFGF4)
* A decision to drive home despite a conviction against drunk driving
* Risky sexual behavior
* Sex with people and in circumstances they would normally decline
People who are forced to consume mind-altering substances, or who consume them unknowingly, are not responsible for their altered state and the resulting decisions.
FWIW, I do agree that very severe intoxication prevents meaningful consent.
Genesis 19:33:
“So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.”
mythago said: “You’re still not answering the question. The argument is that a woman who is intoxicated is still capable of meaningfully consenting to sex. Assuming that is true, why should it matter how she got intoxicated?”
myth, you have a well-documented past of twisting other people’s words and outright inventing them in order to bolster your arguments, and you’re at it again here and using the additional sham of incorrectly quoting me, i.e., ““If you get drunk on purpose, you’re at fault if you do something stupid.†I have always maintained that the woman is partially at fault, no exclusively; you are simply inventing the latter POV on my part. Plus, you’re erecting the strawman re. spiking someone’s drink – I haven’t addressed that topic because, like rape, it simply occurs far too rarely to be a significant issue, especially in the context of ‘ladies’ night’ events. In the same way that I don’t care to debate whether or not we should be afraid of an asteriod hitting the earth, I just don’t care to argue about statistically insignificant non-issues like drink spiking and rape in this context.
One more time, just for you: I’m simply agreeing with the author of the original article cited by Hugo that women who voluntarily go to a club, knowing that they’ll be participating in a ‘ladies’ night’ event where they will receive special treatment in the form of free admission, reduced-price or free drinks, etc., are at least partially responsible for what happens to them. It is you and others who bring up the specific topics of consent, “rape” and other forms of sexual assault, etc., which for reasons cited above is not what I’m talking about here. However, if you’re asking me if a woman who goes to a ‘ladies’ night’ event, voluntarily consumed large quantities of alcohol, etc., is at least partially responsible for whatever happens to her after she gets drunk, IMHO the answer is yes – of course. Just like a drunk driver is at least partially responsible for being involved in a car accident, regardless of whether or not they directly caused the accident. The car accident might have been caused by another person’s actions, but the drunk driver has voluntary put themselves into a physical condition whereby their judgment is impaired, and so has the drunk woman.
I have always maintained that the woman is partially at fault, no exclusively
Mr. Bad, you have a well-documented history of arguing in bad faith and throwing tantrums when others disagree with you. That aside, it’s interesting that you use the example of a car accident. If a drunk driver gets in a car, and some other, sober driver deliberately tries to T-bone and kill them, is the drunk driver ‘partly responsible’ because he may have been able to get out of the way if his reflexes had been faster?
The point I’m still trying to get an answer on is this: if a woman’s reduced judgment when drunk is irrelevant to her ability to consent, then that’s true no matter how she got drunk or whether she got drunk on purpose, isn’t it?
Yes, myth, I was angry at you because I saw you disengenuously arguing with my hyperbole and intentionally missing the point.
No, K., I was actually quite surprised that you seemed to be arguing that the job you were applying for should have a guarantee of zero harassment.
myth, I’ve already answered your question, so your repeated queries, while typically disingenuous and provocative, aren’t worth any more of my time. However, you asked: “If a drunk driver gets in a car, and some other, sober driver deliberately tries to T-bone and kill them, is the drunk driver ‘partly responsible’ because he may have been able to get out of the way if his reflexes had been faster?”
I believe that as a matter of precedent and standard practice, the police will hold the drunk driver at least partially responsible in this case; if you have evidence otherwise then I’d love to see it. Besides, just how to you plan on proving the intent of the other (sober) driver? “Women’s way of knowing?” Vulcan mind meld?
However, I think it unfair of you to suggest that Hugo does not hold women accountable. In his Women’s Studies class, he challenges us to not label ourselves as victims. I remember this especially in regards to our sexual choices with men.
If only words were deeds.
Would it be “honest, candid common sense†and “a lot less patronizing†to suggest that you should take some responsibility for getting punched, because you had the audacity to go out in public? What if you were drunk, and some dude walked up and punched you? Still kind of your fault?
Jill, you’re trying to compare an apple with a double-billed platypus. A much better analogy would be to imagine a man leaving his car with the driver’s door open and the engine running. He comes back to find his car stolen. He is the victim of a crime, no question. However, he must take some responsibility for enabling the crime to occur so easily – and I mean personal responsibility, not some debt to society. We owe it to ourselves to look after ourselves. Personal responsibility isn’t a chore – it’s a virtue that makes your life safer and those around you safer too.
The imaginary man who was randomly punched in the face is more comparable to a total stranger rape where a woman is approached by a car in the middle of the day, in a very safe area surrounded by members of the public, only to find 4 big men (with guns) bundle her into the car. In that case, how could anyone ever say the woman didn’t take precautions? She walked in a safe area in the middle of the day surrounded by people. The random punch was thrown out of the blue. You can’t say that those types of victims were asking for it. But these aren’t the types we’re talking about here (and you know it).
There is no way to prevent yourself from being raped.
This logic is absurd and makes me wonder if you are just a fatalist who crosses the road without looking because, hey, you can’t prevent yourself from being run over. Hey, if a drunk can mow you down when you’re on the pavement, why bother looking when crossing the road?
What about involuntary intoxication? Surely if a drunk woman is responsible for her behavior, she’s responsible whether or not she intended to get drunk, or whether or not she intended to drink alcohol in the first place.
Assuming that is true, why should it matter how she got intoxicated?
In a court of law, if it was proved she was spiked, that would go heavily in favour of prosecution (in a rape trial). This is obvious, no? If it turned out she herself had been drinking, then in many cases, all bets are off – it can deteriorate into a he-said-she-said.
Also, HOW you get intoxicated really does have a bearing on your decision to consent. If you’re spiked you may not even get the conscious moment to even GET to say NO. You wake up in a fuzz 6 hours later wondering what the hell happened. If you are drinking with a guy and pass out, and he rapes you – well as I said – it’s so obviously rape. If you’re drinking with a guy and you start kissing him and then you have sex with him and it all feels good and right then that isn’t rape – it’s the kind of sex millions of people get up to around the world every night – even if you wake up with a hangover and a sense of ‘who the hell is HE next to me in bed??’ and the shame that goes with it – that isn’t rape – it’s regret at the ephemeral nature of desire.
Question to certain posters here (you know who you are): what is it about personal responsibility you are afraid of? Is there a power thing about just wanting rights all the time? I don’t get it. Responsibility’s no bad thing – it makes your life safer and you actually get more control over things, instead having a government take care of your every need.
“Let’s take a situation where a young, very drunk woman agrees to go home and have sex with a man she meets at the bar. Why does it matter whether she got drunk on purpose?”
Say I don’t want to get drunk, because if I do I fear I’ll do something I’ll regret. If you get me drunk, and I then do something I regret, my autonomy has been violated. You manipulated me into doing something I didn’t want to do and wouldn’t have done if you hadn’t manipulated me. If I get myself drunk my autonomy hasn’t been violated. That’s the difference.
On that way of looking at things spiking someone who then decides to sleep with you isn’t rape because they don’t consent, it’s rape because of the manner in which you manipulated them to get their consent. (Like rapes committed through fraud). That seems to me a much more satisfactory way of approaching things than saying people don’t mean what they say if their blood alcohol level is over X.
Another question to those who think you have no responsibilities while you are drunk (if you’re a woman, that is) – what about other actions? Can a woman climb in her car and drive while drunk? What if she steps on a garden rake and gets smashed in the face while drunk? What if she tells her colleagues to “F Off” and gets aggressive while drunk? Why do these actions somehow come attached with responsibilities, yet finding yourself in a drunken tryst with a man attaches no responsibilities to the woman. This is wanting your cake and eating it. Fine, you may do that. However, in the process you’re saying women are like little children, incapable of taking responsibilty for themselves. As Mr Bad says, you’re harking back to the 1700s.
Most people who drink too much do stuff they regret. Even drinking ITSELF can be a regret (the hangover, the ill feeling, oh why did I drink so much?! etc). People say stupid stuff. People get aggressive. People have one night stands. All the while, they do NOT lose their responsibility while behaving recklessly.