Throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater
Posted by aogTuesday, 26 February 2008 at 07:20 TrackBack Ping URL

As long as we’re talking about college and how utterly disconnected I was / am from normal social activity, I must admit being completely puzzled by the discussion in this article about the ‘Campus Rape Myth’. The article is a good one about how radical feminism and the theraputic state combine to create a massive support network for a relatively rare phenomenon, and the contradiciton of that and promoting casual, promiscuous sex. But what I found bizarre was its portrayal of women on college campuses.

College girls drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties. That drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests University of Virginia graduate Karin Agness: it frees the drinker from responsibility and “provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.” A Columbia University security official marvels at the scene at homecomings: “The women are shit-faced, saying, ‘Let’s get as drunk as we can,’ while the men are hovering over them.” As anticipated, the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know. This less-than-romantic denouement produces the “roll and scream: you roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream,” a Duke coed reports in Laura Sessions Stepp’s recent book Unhooked.

Let’s skip over the question of why a woman would enjoy receiving the intimate attention of a drunken frat boy to note that the end result of this process is a woman remembering all the negative aspects of promiscuity, and none of the good parts. Any pleasure from the act is lost in alchohol induced amnesia, while the dross is left to be seared in to memory during the morning “roll and scream”. Is this sort of sexual encounter like a painful duty, best done quickly and with little memory? But duty to whom? It sounds like a “lie back and think of England” thing, which is rather an odd result of putative feminism. And if it’s just a social requirement, why not don’t and say you did? Who’s going to have been sober enough to contradict you?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
erp Tuesday, 26 February 2008 at 08:45

Some time back, a dean of students at a major university told me that in previous days, some students got drunk as a by product of socializing. Now the object of socializing is to get drunk.

Bret Tuesday, 26 February 2008 at 11:17

I guess “roll and scream” for a girl is similar to “coyote ugly” for a boy where he wakes up and sees a girl so ugly next to him who’s asleep on top of his arm that, like a coyote in a trap, he decides to chew his arm off rather than risk waking her up while making his escape.

I can kinda understand drinking to oblivion, and I can kinda understand using a moderate amount of alcohol to loosen up a bit, but I too have trouble understanding drinking to oblivion for the purpose of having sex you don’t really experience and don’t remember. For either a boy or a girl.

Peter Tuesday, 26 February 2008 at 12:33

What I don’t understand is why you guys have such a hard time understanding. Why do you think a world of sexual licence developed a complementary artifical and quite absurd rape industry? Why do you think these girls get blotto in the first place in order to join the party?

But it’s easy for me to say, that, of the two of us, I’m the only one who still has nightmares, found myself panicking and detaching during sex for many months afterwards, and spent more time looking into the abyss than any one person should.

Hint: That is also frequently true about sober casual sex.

This is worth framing:

But it (ed—the desire to dominate) is an absurd description of the barnyard rutting that undergraduate men, happily released from older constraints, seek. The guys who push themselves on women at keggers are after one thing only, and it’s not a reinstatement of the patriarchy. Each would be perfectly content if his partner for the evening becomes president of the United States one day, so long as she lets him take off her panties tonight.


…is a woman remembering all the negative aspects of promiscuity, and none of the good parts.

We men do enjoy our fantasies, don’t we?

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 26 February 2008 at 13:58

Mr. Burnet;

What is it that you have a hard time understanding that we have a hard time understanding? Your comment was a bit vague. I understand why the campus rape consuling industry prospers. I do have a hard time understanding why women get blotto to join the party, though.

I am also not sure what fantasy you think I am enjoying as a man. As best I can guess, you think that there is nothing whatsoever good about promiscuity for women. If that’s so, it would have to follow that you think promiscuous women are the stupidest people on earth because they engage in a damaging activity that has absolutely no perceived benefit, such as the women in your first quote. Is that really your view? Personally, I can’t really think of any activity a significant number of people engage in that doesn’t have something good about it. After all, if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be so popular.

Robert Mitchell Jr. Tuesday, 26 February 2008 at 14:20

AOG, if I had to guess, I would say that the young women in question want sex, in the human drive, not the pleasure, sense. Coming on to boys will still get you called a slut by the other women, and the feminist movement has destroyed the old forms of courtship. This squalid act “feeds the need”, and keeps the biology quiet, for a time, sort of like a liquid diet, used by people who lack control, and must now suffer for their health. Would you want to linger over your liquid diet?

Bret Tuesday, 26 February 2008 at 17:35

Regarding the woman from the article who said, “I’m the only one who still has nightmares, found myself panicking and detaching during sex for many months…”

She made a serious mistake (at least from her perspective) and now she’s paying a price when encountering situations that have some things in common with the situation in which she made the mistake. This is a natural and even a good thing. Chances are she’ll never make that mistake again.

That’s how we learn from the school of hard knocks - it hurts, we’re scarred, we learn, we don’t do it again, and eventually we get over it and move on.

It’s the fact that some girls do it more than once that I find surprising.

Peter Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 08:37

AOG, we’ve been down this road before. Your efforts to see (impose?) symmetry in how men and women are treated in this matter are valiant, but don’t you ever wonder why we don’t read stories about how sororities throw keg parties in to get the boys tanked (thereby loosening up those traditional inhibitions) so they can initiate them into all those positive aspects of promiscuity?

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 11:56

That’s interesting, because I don’t think the situation is symmetric. That’s why I asked about college women, and not men. The motivations of the men are crystal clear to me, even if I don’t personally share them. Even if the guy doesn’t remember, there are self esteem and social status benefits to having had sex with a woman. It is the woman’s motivation that is opaque to me. I am presuming that a significant number of college women are capable of deriving physical pleasure from sex — am I confused, and that’s what you’re referring to as a male fantasy?

Bret Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 12:24

Peter asks: “…don’t you ever wonder why we don’t read stories about how sororities throw keg parties in to get the boys…

You might not read about them, but they certainly happened when I went to college. The sororities at the all girls colleges in the Boston area would routinely have keg parties. I was at parties at Wellesley, Simmons, and Smith that were every bit as wild as the ones our fraternity had, and as far as sexual activity goes, probably a good bit wilder (perhaps the girls felt safer on their home turf?).

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 19:08

Ms. McDonald probably would have been better served turning this into two columns.

The first is very effective at attacking the grievance industry. The 25% rate for rape on college campuses is reminiscent of the number that got tossed around for the longest time about the number of women dying from anorexia nervosa.

Which, in order to be true, would have to mean there are over 800 million women in America.

What could have made a separate article dealt with the choices women make that get them into situations they regret.

The original article has a list of linking blogs. Take a look at Feministing. Nearly every commenter there takes the 25% rate as sacrosanct. What is worse, though, is that they nearly all place the entire blame for the drunk coeds predicament upon the guy.

Reminds me of one of Jack Nicholson’s lines from the movie “As Good as it Gets”. He is a famous author in the movie. In response to a enthusiastic female reader, who is curious as to how he writes such believable women characters he says “I write a guy, then remove all reason and accountability.”

Which is precisely where the Feministas are.

cjm Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 19:47

the other wildly inflated statistic is 10% homosexual rate in the general population. if it’s even 1% i would be surprised.

Hey Skipper Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 21:59


IIRC, and I don’t have a cite for it, reverse engineering from AIDS infection rates leads to roughly 2-3% of the population being male homosexual.

That isn’t 1%, but it is a heck of a lot less than 10%, leaving your point intact.

David Cohen Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 22:12

AOG: One way that you’re forcing symmetry onto the article is your belief that men, too, get so drunk they can’t remember the sex. The article doesn’t say a word about men drinking. Instead, the story is about women drinking enough to lower their inhibitions/give them an excuse.

cjm Friday, 29 February 2008 at 00:13

HS: interesting methodolgy, i hadn’t heard that before.

one thing i have wondered about is the rise of “Girls gone Wild” nation; where do they come from ? are they from the lower classes, or is the middle class genuinely debauching itself. from talking to some younger friends what goes on at the colorado river or cancun would make a roman blush. maybe it has always been thus, but it seems to be a newly emerging trend.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 29 February 2008 at 09:15

Mr. Cohen;

I am sure some men do. But whether they do or not isn’t relevant to the original post. And as Bret noted, it still doesn’t make sense to “drink into near or actual oblivion” in order to “lower their inhibitions/give them an excuse” to end with only the negative aftermath of casual sex.


That’s something that I wonder about as well. Could it an artifact of increasing wealth? Certainly large segments of the rich have always debauched this way (e.g., Paris Hilton). Are we now becoming rich enough that it is trickling down?

Hey Skipper Friday, 29 February 2008 at 15:44

… to end with only the negative aftermath of casual sex.

The problem is, unlike intoxication, the aftermath doesn’t occur ahead of time.

Peter Friday, 29 February 2008 at 19:01


You are puzzled by all this? That’s kind of cute, rather like someone who, after a lifetime fighting for absolute free speech and the right of everyone to decide for themselves what is and isn’t obscene, suddenly scratches his head and says: “I don’t get it, where did all this porn come from?”

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 29 February 2008 at 20:15

Not by “all this”, only by college women getting drunk to oblivion in order to have sex they can’t remember. You analogy would be better if I would say “why are all these blind people buying so many pornographic pictures?”.

David Cohen Friday, 29 February 2008 at 20:46

And Peter’s point, as I understand, is that it is you who is forcing symmetry by assuming, among other things, that women want to have memories of meaningless sex; that blackouts are a bug, not a feature.

Peter Friday, 29 February 2008 at 22:30


There were far too many commas it that sentence for me to have any idea whether you were agreeing with me ot not. :-)

AOG: Have you read Tom Wolfe’s “My Name is Charlotte Simmons”?

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 29 February 2008 at 22:32

Well, if you don’t want to have memories of meaningless sex, why not just not have any? Isn’t that a cheaper, safer, and much easier way to go about not having such memories?

Peter Friday, 29 February 2008 at 23:19

Don’t get me wrong, AOG. When I look back on my youth, my biggest regret is the paucity of meaningless sax. Damn women! Surely they should have understood I would have been a better man for it.

Hey Skipper Saturday, 01 March 2008 at 01:28

AOG, David, Peter:

You are all assuming formed intent. Why?

The problem is, unlike intoxication, the aftermath doesn’t occur ahead of time.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 01 March 2008 at 08:27


I am taking the cited article at its word, to wit

That drinking is often goal-oriented […] it frees the drinker from responsibility and “provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.” […] As anticipated, the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter […] [emphasis added]

I read that as a clear indication of intent.

Mr. Burnet;

You’ve totally lost me now. My original question was, “why do these women engage in unremembered meaningless sex?”. You seem to be answering questions about why I, or men in general, wouldn’t want or encourage this behavior. I think it’s dumb to engage in meaningless sex, but I can understand why a person would do so, because at least it’s fun for a little while. But in this case, the fun is missing, so what’s the upside for the women? What motivates them?

cjm Saturday, 01 March 2008 at 11:07

my query wasn’t related to this or that particular person engaging in a dissipated lifestyle. not sure at all what peter is going on about as he is trying to be funny (i think) at the expense of making sense. i suspect he may be a crypto-juddian here to subvert the search for truth and meaning :)

what i am asking about, and interested in, are trends; i.e. is the fundamental nature of this country changing or not. i think AOG is onto something re: affluence and decadence go hand in hand. i remember watching a show about this upscale area in georgia, where there was an outbreak of syphilis amongst teens.

every parent they interviewed was too busy with their own lives (either spending money on leisure, or working too hard to get more money) to know or care what their kids were getting upto. if i remember correctly, these families typically had either a single parent, or two parents with full time careers.

take the natalie holloway case, for example: who in their right mind lets their teen-age daughter go to some 3rd world island on their own ? the telling aspect of that sad episode was the mom getting into a relationship (i think) with someone in the media — “look natalie, mommy’s happy again, i did it for you!!”.

in another show about hs kids going to cancun on spring break, the adult chaperones were too busy trying to score with each other (and the kids) to notice or do anything about the binge drinking going on right in front of them.

of course these are just anecdotes, and not thorough research, but there do seem to be an awful lot of consistent data points.

Hey Skipper Saturday, 01 March 2008 at 13:58


Yes, that is what the article says.

And leaves us with a problem.

Which is more likely to be true:

— the students in question formed astonishingly self-defeating intent even before starting drinking


— the author’s assessment of another party’s state of mind before the fact is dead wrong.

I have no reason to believe the former is objectively true; therefore, I think taking the article at its word is creating for you a dilemma that does not, in fact, exist.

Hey Skipper Saturday, 01 March 2008 at 14:02

I meant to add:

It is one thing to drink with the intent of loosening inhibitions, but that doesn’t mean there is any intent to become so drunk as to end up engaging in sex one can’t remember.

I have, thankfully only several times, ended up completely plastered without ever having formed the intent of getting that way.

It’s called a mistake, not a plan.

David Cohen Saturday, 01 March 2008 at 15:40

I’ll try to keep the commas to a minimum.

AOG is assuming that women are just men with innies rather than outies.

However, a perfectly consistent explanation of this article is that young women, whether by nature or nurture, are don’t like meaningless sex but that they have been betrayed by the (first-wave feminist and hedonistic) culture into being pressured to have meaningless sex.

As a result, they binge drink, which has the “virtues” of lowering their inhibitions, letting them forget and letting them avoid responsibility.

In turn, second-wave anti-sex academic feminism tells young women that they have been raped unless they gave sober, explicit consent to each step on the way to sex (“May I kiss you?” “Yes, you may.” “May I now fondle your breast?” “Yes, you may.”) Since rape is, by definition, not sex and since the victim can never be blamed, women who get drunk can retroactively choose not to have sex.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 01 March 2008 at 17:06

Mr. Cohen;

No, I am not assuming that. I am really unclear on what basis you and Mr. Burnet presume that other than the statement that my claim there exist women who can enjoy sex.

Other than that, your explanation seems plausible.

Peter Sunday, 02 March 2008 at 06:35

I’m not trying to be crypto-juddian or even crypto-peterish. If the culture (schools, media, music/films, parents) raises successive generations to believe that: a)sexual behaviour is a matter of sovereign pesonal choice; b) sex is a biological need or impulse that is positively correlated with good health, and self-denial can be dangerous; c) sex is or should be decoupled from psychological and emotional needs like love, security or committment; and d) principled sexual caution or reserve is a remnant of bad old religion and a historical collective misogyny that modern people leave behind them, it should come as no surprise that this stuff goes on. That the downside is falling on women doesn’t surpise me, but then I don’t buy any of the four principles above. Obviously lots of women seem to get through this bacchanalia with no evident surface trauma. I suspect many of them make hard-nosed professionals and indifferent mothers and spouses (which is what they are told they should be), and that their divorce stats later on are depressing, but I have no way of knowing for sure. But surely you libertarians should be honest enough to say: “Sorry, these girls will just have to suck it up. That’s the cost of doing business. Our unrestricted sexual freedom is paramount.” Welcome to Patriarchy II.

cjm’s point about parents is interesting. It’s true that some kids of the beautiful people get lost in their parents’ self-fulfillment whirlwinds, but even with more attentive and committed types, what do they say if they too believe the four items above? Once the teen years arrive and they are past the “its not nice to kick Granny” stage of moral development, what opening is there for them to preach reserve and caution beyond a bleak “it’s my house” authoritarianism? Beyond hygiene issues, how can you preach sex is private, fun, harmless and healthy for those with a B.A. but frought with dangers for teens and undergrads? Looking at our kids’ friends and my wife’s school, it is clear to me that the kids doing the best are the ones with parents (especially mothers) fighting the zeitgeist in some way. Anecdotal to be sure, but too many anecdotes to ignore as happenstance.

Bret Sunday, 02 March 2008 at 11:04


I’ll buy a,b,c, & d though I wouldn’t put them quite that way.

However, I think what I’m curious about is the implementation of (a). If that’s what the girls wanna do, then fine, it just seems odd to me that they make that particular sovereign personal choice. You’ll note that in my comments above, I have basically said, “Sorry, these girls will just have to suck it up.”

I think skipper’s explanation is most likely. The girls probably intended to drink and perhaps have sex, but the writer mistated the intention that they planned to drink to oblivion and then have sex. In other words, mistakes are made.

I was young once and the scene wasn’t that much different really. If some clueless journalist from Mars had watched they might possibly have written the same thing. But girls didn’t intentionally drink to oblivion to have sex. It just happened by mistake from time-to-time. The guys also weren’t hovering hoping to have sex with a passed out or oblivious girl. But they were drinking too and as a result they’re judgment wasn’t always impeccable.

Gronker Sunday, 02 March 2008 at 20:29

Look, I dont agree with the supposition that women (girls really) are trying to get so drunk they dont remember doing the nasty. That has not and is not the case. It has always been the case that women get get drunk to lower their inhibitions to the level they do the things they wouldnt ordinarily want to do. To push themselves to the “expected behaviour” in college, many women find they have to drink. Its not that they dont like men, or that they dont enjoy the act — its that they find it hard to let go to that point.

The problem these days, I think, is that the expectations have gotten so out of whack. The goodnight kiss of the 50s became the makeout of the 70s became the blowjob of the 90s which is now the multiple partner bukake parties of this decade. It takes alot more brain cells to be sacrificed to get to that level of action.

I could rail on about the “rap culture” and its effect on middle class values…but I wont.

Peter Monday, 03 March 2008 at 08:13

Gronker, your good sense of perspective seems to have little place in these debates. I can’t decide whether it is men or blogging or the fact that we live in ideological times, but the fact that some of our friends here hold doggedly to this abusing and debasing of women through de facto prostitution as an incident of freedom and Enlightenment thinking is disturbing on several planes. (BTW, AOG/Bret, surely you are aware that films of these parties are all over porn sites and elsewhere on the web. Should the girls suck that up too, or is there an implied contract that they will only service the boys in the dark?) You know how it works. If you suggest this is wrong and there should be supervisory measures to protect against it, you are met with the charge you see women as delicate flowers who don’t like sex. Argue that the men should be restrained and you’re a closet theocrat. Suggest the women should be restrained and you’re a patriarch starting down the slippery slope to demanding proof of virginity before the wedding. Like unrecontrusted marxists, they run to ideology for pat, across-the-board answers, in effect using Thomas Jefferson to argue that men should be allowed to rut at will without consequence. And then they wonder why “great awakenings” happen.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 03 March 2008 at 10:16

Mr. Burnet;

I am still not at all grasping your point. I suspect that you are writing as if I was surprised by the overall content of the original article, rather than the very specific point I cited. I also fail to see how you go from my question of “why would these women do something this dumb?” to active support for it. Generally the former is seen as contraindicating the latter.

Bret and my position is not that this is any way good, but that if you dumb things, you get bad results. The question is not why (incorrectly) we should be surprised by any of this, but why these girls would be. Further, our issue is not whether such behavior is a bad idea, but the leap from that to “supervisory measures”. I certainly have no objection at all to labeling this behavior as stupid and wrong. In fact, I did that in the original post by implication, as noted in the previous paragraph.

Gronker Monday, 03 March 2008 at 14:55

this sort of sexual encounter like a painful duty, best done quickly and with little memory? But duty to whom?

Back to the original point, I cant help but point to the “rap culture”ization of mainstream America. I know that some will want to blame some imagined “paternalistic society” or blame the men for “taking advantage” of the women in question. But I think that the guys are getting just as injured by these expectations. Everybody gets their rocks off, but it becomes a matter of escalation.

I had a roommate in college (not AOG :) who was a master at the drunk co-ed bag-and-tag. The dude got more action than any 10 other guys I knew. But even that had a strange innocence to it compared to today. I have a 22-year old son that I have watched stay mostly clear of the stuff Im talking about, but I see his friends and classmates and hear about their issues. Girls seem to think that blowing a guy is about equivalant to shaking hands. When you start from there, where is “extreme”?

Should we blame the parents? Somewhat, of course, but when an entire society shifts (think the 60s) its nearly impossible to counteract that effect 100%. I truely have an issue with liberalism and its unholy spawn, multiculturalism. And that is what I think we have to blame this current phase upon. All culture is good, different is good, always … and to say otherwise is racist or somehow intolerant. But again, I digress into something best saved for another post.

Peter Monday, 03 March 2008 at 20:43


I suppose I would have to admit that what is really getting to me is the absence of disgust.

But why would you oppose supervisory measures if you agree this is all wrong? Lots of colleges still have them. Haven’t you said many times that you are all for social sanctions and that it is legal prohibitions you object to?

Bret Monday, 03 March 2008 at 21:38


What’s the real difference between supervisory measures and legal prohibition? Expelling someone from college is little different than a legal prohibition.

People can always sign up to be supervised by friends, family, church, mentors, etc. No need to compel anyone to do anything in this case.

BTW, I’m not aware of videos of drunk girls all over the net. Are they video’d having sex? Are you sure they’re not just porn-stars pretending? I didn’t realize it was legal to photograph and/or film someone and then publish those photos and films without permission. I personally wouldn’t mind a prohibition on that.

Gronker Tuesday, 04 March 2008 at 03:17

I suppose I would have to admit that what is really getting to me is the absence of disgust.

I guess I really dont know what you are talking about here. Who should I be disgusted at? The stupid girl that gets drunk and puts herself into situations like this? At the guy, also usually drunk and cruising, who nails a girl who seems to want what he wants? Disgust for society as a whole? Gotta be more specific…

But why would you oppose supervisory measures if you agree this is all wrong? Lots of colleges still have them. Haven’t you said many times that you are all for social sanctions and that it is legal prohibitions you object to?

Why the layers of BS rules and regs? Rape is illegal. Most, if not all colleges, have rules that will boot students that commit crimes while students, especially felonies. Done. Why add more bureaucratic crap. If its not illegal I sure as HELL dont want a student held to some arbitrary “law” enacted by the administration of a college. Most college boards have about as much sense as a fruit bat, and a fifth the spine.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 04 March 2008 at 08:45

Mr. Burnet;

It’s a cultural thing. We’re mostly engineers, and in that field, it’s much worse to be stupid than to be disgusting.

It’s also interesting to think of the conflict between decrying the infantialization of citizens and requiring supervision of de jure adults at college. I view these students as adults, entitled to make adult decisions resulting in adult consequences. I support this, even if this kind of behavior is “wrong” (although, again, I think of it more as “counter-productive” or “stupid”). Does not God leave the decision to sin or not to people? He doesn’t enage in supervisory measures, so why not follow His example?

That said, I would certainly support a much higher level of general priggishness so that this kind of stupidity required at least the exertion of violating norms, rather than being the norm. So, yes, I fully support much stronger social pressure against drunken debauchery. But as with Bret, I don’t quite see what you mean by supervisory measures as distinct from effectively legal measures.

I will admit my viewpoint may be a bit skewed — after all, I went through 11 years of college without ever being drunk. So I would be fine with prohibiting alcohol on the premises of any campus recognized organization (e.g., fraternities) but frankly, good luck with that in real life. I just don’t see what kind of measures like that would be both realistic and effective, given the state of the general culture.

Hey Skipper Tuesday, 04 March 2008 at 18:34

What is really getting to me is the suspicion that this thread is all tip and no iceberg.

It seems glaringly obvious that for women, such behavior runs head on not only into their own self interests, but also reality. If this behavior was anything like widespread and harmful, one would expect to see a reflection in female suicide rates.

Which have been declining almost without interruption since 1970.

Just as there is no campus rape crisis (the strong part of the article), there is no sex-driven compulsive drinking crisis.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 04 March 2008 at 21:33

Yes, there are indications of that in the rest of the article. One I remember is some other college woman noting that if this were common at some particular fraternity house, why would any woman be a guest?

cjm Wednesday, 05 March 2008 at 18:44

for the record, i find this sort of thing very disgusting but it is so prevalent that it isn’t noteworthy. also, it has always been thus. another thing to keep in mind is that reporters/writers always exaggerate things they are writing about.

bret: let me know if you want a url for that sort of thing; research only of course :)

erp Thursday, 06 March 2008 at 07:35

Put me in the disgusted category too. FYI - for girls, being “popular” is paramount. That’s why they go to the parties where the BMOC campus hang out (pun intended).

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 06 March 2008 at 10:08


That’s the most plausible explanation I have seen.


I would tend to agree that the original author is probably exaggerating the extent of the activity, but my personal experience is so abnormal that it’s hard to make judgements.

Gronker Thursday, 06 March 2008 at 14:04

I still am waiting to hear who I am supposed to be disgusted towards. I am disappointed that we have come to this place, but I am not sure if I am disgusted towards anyone in these scenarios. I tend to look at the participants and shake my head and say “you made your bed, now lie in it” (pun intended).

Disgust would imply that I had some other expectation from anyone, which I dont. Maybe thats the truely disgusting part?

Peter Thursday, 06 March 2008 at 16:09

Who made their bed, Gronker, and who has to lie in it? That phrase seems to suggest someone took risks despite a reasonable forseeability of damage of some kind. I assume you aren’t talking about the men. No bed for them to lie in, but was the damage reasonably forseeable to them too?

erp Thursday, 06 March 2008 at 16:23

I know I’m disgusted because so many girls are mindless nitwits.

Gronker Thursday, 06 March 2008 at 22:27

Peter: I said, and mean, both participants. Both cheapen themselves by their actions, both pay a cost. Maybe its less for the guy, but my comment is both.

Getting shitfaced and looking for sex, anyplace where there are those of the opposite sex doing the same, risks the likelyhood of you having sex. Personnally, I wish I’d done it more, but I was in a committed relationship for most of that time. c’est la vie…

What I can’t abide by is either party getting in that situation, then in the morning, when the regrets start, blaming the other party. And when that comes to the point of legal claims of non-concentual sex, I have a huge problem. Im not saying there are not cases of parties who get drunk and force others againt their will; this happens and it is a horrible crime. But when the “no” happens post-coitally, thats where I stand up and say too bad. Suffer the consequences of your own actions.

I had a roommate (not AOG) who had a younger co-ed girlfriend for months. They were quite sexually active (thin walls). She was around our apt. for months. When they broke up, she accused him of raping her on their first dates (yes plural). She said that he got her drunk and she had sex with him because she was drunk. And that this was rape. Let alone the facts that she enjoyed it, repeatedly, came back for more, many times, and never said a word. The fact that she never said no, at the time (prolly a 100 separate times, by my guess), this didnt matter to her or those that egged her to formally charge him.

This case is indicitive of the BS cases I think were described in the article.

Bret Friday, 07 March 2008 at 01:24

This discussion reminds me of a blues song I wrote 30 years ago. The girls were doing the same thing then. I put the song online. Here’s a link to it.

Peter Friday, 07 March 2008 at 05:01

Well, Gronker/Bret, if you are going to tell me that men have always behaved this way and the girls should expect it and not complain, then I’m going to remind you that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Bret Friday, 07 March 2008 at 08:32

Okay, let me rephrase that. SOME OF the girls were doing the same thing then.

cjm Friday, 07 March 2008 at 14:19

women are deceptively dangerous.

Gronker Friday, 07 March 2008 at 15:30

Well, Gronker/Bret, if you are going to tell me that men have always behaved this way and the girls should expect it and not complain, then I’m going to remind you that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Well, I do love how you try to put words in my mouth. I am just saying that getting drunk and lowering your inhibitions around those who a likely to take advantage of this condition, or even more likely not even recognize the condition as abnormal, is stupid and dangerous. But that doesnt “excuse” rape. My issue is that when a woman has sex, drunk, and doesnt say no and participates in the act, she doesnt get to play the rape card based on the “I was drunk, I was in no state to give my consent”. Sorry, you cant have your cake and eat it too.

Here is a something I dont think makes it into these arguements enough: Rape is a crime of intent not result. Take a hypothetical; A guy at a party slips two women a major drug and aphrodisiac. He pick one of the women for a night of debauchery and leaves with her. Another guy comes by and the other woman is all over him. He, has no knowledge that she was drugged. He takes her to his room and they both enjoy one hell of a night. Is the second guy guilty of rape?

cjm Friday, 07 March 2008 at 19:08

depends on if the judge is a clinton appointee

Peter Saturday, 08 March 2008 at 07:44

Gronker, when you talk of criminal rape, the devil is in the details and you have sort of cooked the books on this one with Another guy comes by and the other woman is all over him. Just minding his own business on the way to the library, was he? I mean, what’s a poor country boy to do?

I’m sure most folks would agree that this stuff doesn’t merit five years of hard time, or probably even any criminal sanction at all. Rape is a somewhat unique and very difficult crime because the state of mind of the victim defines the difference between a serious felony and a perfectly lawful (and many like Bret would say, beneficial,) act. But it’s you modern libertarians who have put the dilemma in stark relief by refusing to see anything wrong here or countenancing any extra-legal sanctions like monitoring, university discipline, civil liability, etc. You seem to have lost all capacity to say: “Well, it’s not a crime, but it is disgusting, dangerous and exploitative and we’re going to try and stop or minimize it.” You don’t even want to champion the voices of the co-eds complaining about it (bunch of repressed prudes!). I don’t even hear voices saying that the male friends and frat-brothers should be all over these guys. It doesn’t seem to matter than we all agree that if anyone is hurt by this it will almost certainly be the women. We can argue appropriate sanctions late into the night, but you don’t seem to see any as legitimate. You want these guys to walk free with nary a moment’s regret and if the women suffer, well there is always therapy.

This is why I never understand what AOG is getting at when he says things like this. It’s fine to talk of accepting consequences in the abstract, but all I ever hear from the libertarian side is how precious their absolute freedom is and how outrageous it is that anyone wants to limit their right to say or do whatever, whenever, legally or extra-legally. If that freedom is causing anybody problems, no matter how timeless or forseeable, that’s their problem.

A good analogy to all this is office speech codes. Again, they are noxious because the offence is defined by the mindset of the “victim” rather than objective criteria, but surely something like this was inevitable as offices became more integrated because most women do see uninvited vulgar talk from men directed their way as offensive or menacing, and they can become seriously freaked by it if it continues unabated. The libertarian position born of ideological purity would seem to be that feeling offended is irrational and old-fashioned and it is up to the girls to toughen up. Can’t have my constitutional right to turn on the babes stomped on, can we? Again, the distinction beteen legal and social sanctions is swept away. Ergo, the whole issue is conceded to the feminist left and we get crazy speech codes and really oppressive harassment laws while the libertarians keep dreaming about the Old West.

Gronker Saturday, 08 March 2008 at 18:23

I dont live in your world, thankfully, “Peter”. Either somthing is a crime or it is not. If it is, it should be prosecuted, by due process, and sanctioned in that way. If it is NOT, than it is not, PERIOD.

extra-legal sanctions like monitoring, university discipline, civil liability, etc.

I think your own word damns you: “Extra-legal”. You see there are laws I dont abide by and there are laws I dont think are correct, but, the society I have chosen to live has enacted them and so I “have made my bed and must lay in it”. But to surrender any of my rights to some “extra-legal” process is insane.

Who decides the rules for this “extra-legal” process? Where are they posted? What is the appeal process? Who chooses the arbiters of this process? How does one opt out? By what authority do they mete out their penalties? Who watches the watchers?

No, in your world, a fuzzy sort of logic appears where one has to judge their own actions by what one thinks, maybe, some other group might or might not think about them. Your world is void of absolutes because you appearantly cant handle them. I am sorry you missed your utopian haven of watchers and undefined behavioural rules in the USSR, but there is still China.

You know, every job I have taken in the last 20 years I have had to sign an employment agreement. And I actually read them, and edit them before I sign. I will strike out portions and say, “this is not legal, I cant sign this with section blah included”. I do that with alot of contracts. I dont ever sign anything with binding arbitration in it. Strike that stuff right off the page. But once I sign it, I have explictly given them the right to sanction me on an explict set of rules. This is fair. Unlike your desired system, it is explicit and it is mutual.

I will say that I am FOR shame. I am FOR chastisement. I am for social mores. I just dont think that these things should be legistlated or that sanctions are advisable. If someone is picking his nose to the 2nd knuckle, Im not going to go over and introduce myself. The dude will sit in the corner, examining his mined gold, all by himself. He will be outcast and will learn, one would hope, not to sit at a bar and dig for gold. This is just and right. But you would like some “snot board” to be able to ban him from drinking lite beer for a month for each nugget of goodness he picks. Are you on the snot board, Peter?

Peter Sunday, 09 March 2008 at 05:11

Wow, Gronker, I’ve seen lots of metaphors to describe my totalitarian impulses before, but that one is, well, original. I sure hope I don’t catch you talking that way when the ladies are around (you know how sensitive they are) or my theocratic friends and I will have to consider some serious extra-legal sanctions.

But I see your point. This whole extra-legal game is a dangerous slippery slope. Next thing you know, someone will bring back chaperones or even ban women from higher education. So let’s just make keggers illegal, ok?

Gronker Sunday, 09 March 2008 at 22:01

But, but, I liked keggers. There is something of a rite of passage in drinking until you puke with friends :)

BTW, in response to your office speech code example above: I dont know if you remember the Anita Hill thing (during the borking of Clarence Thomas), but I know of several employers that vowed not to hire women for after that episode. To this day, you’ll find entire depts of major corporations that are mostly uni-sex. I have work for many managers that openly believe that men and women dont work well together. Not that they are not effective at their jobs, but that they cause “HR issues”.

My first impulse is to say that these managers are wrong or being overly cautious. But I constantly hear of cases where their fears are warrented. Im not sure what the solution is, but asking people to change their behaviour in their everyday work is not going to work, especially when that behaviour is not really bad just gender normal (oh boy is that phrase going to get me into trouble :)

Telling dirty jokes is, we are told, inappropriate behaviour at work. But when one spends so much time with co-workers, its hard for that not to turn into friendship and its hard to spend that much time being someone you are not. People want to be themselves.

So managers are left with few options, all of them painful: dont hire unlike people, strictly limit self-expression and comfort at the workplace, deal with HR issues on hopefully rare occations. None are great options.

What do you see as the right option?

Robert Duquette Friday, 21 March 2008 at 03:44

That’s something that I wonder about as well. Could it an artifact of increasing wealth? Certainly large segments of the rich have always debauched this way (e.g., Paris Hilton). Are we now becoming rich enough that it is trickling down?

Close. Women are now becoming independently wealthy, or at least financially independent. So they are not at risk of ruining their lifetime earning potential by accidentally being seduced by the wrong guy at the wrong time. There is no longer a wrong guy or wrong time. With no need for a man-provider, any guy is disposable.

So, the short answer to why women are doing this is because they can.

Robert Duquette Friday, 21 March 2008 at 04:36

BTW, AOG/Bret, surely you are aware that films of these parties are all over porn sites and elsewhere on the web.

Just as an indicator of how far down the slope we are, I’ve read that the porn industry is suffering because “amateurs” are posting their own porn to the web, free of charge.

Robert Duquette Friday, 21 March 2008 at 05:50

It seems glaringly obvious that for women, such behavior runs head on not only into their own self interests, but also reality. If this behavior was anything like widespread and harmful, one would expect to see a reflection in female suicide rates.

If the behavior leads to unintended pregnancy and then abortion, then you will see an increase in suicides. You do. Women who have an abortion are more likely to commit suicide then women who don’t get pregnant, and even more so than women who do and give birth.

But the suicide rate is a very low sensitivity measuring device to detect harmful behavior, akin to using a thermometer that registers either 0 or 600 degrees to bake a cake. Look at the mental health statistics in general, especially the use of antidepressants. What’s happening with that indicator?

Robert Duquette Friday, 21 March 2008 at 06:01

FYI - for girls, being “popular” is paramount. That’s why they go to the parties where the BMOC campus hang out (pun intended).

That’s part of it. I think more accurately it is conformity. One of the other lies/fallacies of the modern liberated lifestyle, in addition to the four listed above by Peter, is the notion of being unique and independent. We pay lip service, especially in advertising, to being a rebel/ blazing one’s own trail/marching to the beat of a different drum/etc. But the oxymoron of mass marketed individuality should clue you in to the reality that everyone really just wants to fit in. We are a herd animal. I think a lot of women will go along with this kind of behavior because all their friends are. Extreme is the new normal, just as red is the new black (or whatever).

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 21 March 2008 at 07:52

There, fixed your formatting.

Yes, the pornography industry is suffering for many of the same reasons as the music industry. It’s cheaper to distribute and cheaper to make, generally lowered inhibitions being a significant contributor (e.g., Girls Gone Wild).

Post a comment