Common Sense and Double Standards in ‘Campus Rape Myth’
Heather MacDonald is right that campus rape statistics are overblown by administrators bent on redefining the term. Yet she also judges young women unfairly.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
In my first week at university I received a copy of the Little Blue Book. This was little, blue, and full of practical advice about sex and “relationships.” I remember in particular a page with pictures of various contraceptive devices: a condom, a diaphragm, a packet of pills — and a fifty pence piece. Great fun was had speculating on how the “50 pence method” might work. “If that’s all he spends on a night out, just say no,” was one theory. In fact, the fifty pence piece was there “for scale.”
The Little Blue Book also gave the number of the Rape Crisis Center (not part of the university) and an internal contact for counseling. I never used this because I was never raped; nor were any of my friends, at least not while at university. Plenty of us had “bad sex,” often under the influence of alcohol. This wasn’t rape; it was what we English call “beer goggles.”
According to Heather MacDonald, whose article “The Campus Rape Myth” caused a bit of a stir, the “campus rape industry” says my friends and I were wrong. A quarter of us were raped, whether we knew it or not.
This is nonsense. One in four can’t be right. Heather MacDonald’s article sensibly draws a distinction between bad sex — sex that is later regretted — and rape. MacDonald rightly criticizes the “campus rape industry” for asking leading questions and encouraging a sense of victimhood:
The campus rape movement highlights the current condition of radical feminism, from its self-indulgent bathos to its embrace of ever more vulnerable female victimhood.
Equally sensibly, MacDonald questions whether the “tens of millions of dollars of federal funding” have been wisely spent on a counseling facility that is rarely used:
It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic — but no one calls.
In arguing that casual sex is not the same as rape, and that the “campus rape crisis” is “overblown,” MacDonald presents herself as the dispassionate voice of common sense. But she doesn’t leave it at that. She launches into a tirade against what she calls the “booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-night, stands.” And here the voice of common sense becomes passionate — not for her a jokey term like “beer goggles”:
[B]oorish, sluttish behavior that gets cruder each year … [C]ollege girls drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties … the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know. … To the extent that they’re remembered at all, these are the couplings that are occasionally transformed into “rape” — though far less often than the campus rape industry wishes.
Just a second — I thought rape wasn’t a problem on campus. Now MacDonald is saying that it is. Well, not rape as such, but “rape,” that strange non-rape that takes place in quotation marks, and in the imagination of campus “rape industrialists.”
[I]f the rape industrialists are so sure that foreseeable and seemingly cooperative drunken sex amounts to rape, there are some obvious steps that they could take to prevent it. Above all, they could persuade girls not to put themselves into situations whose likely outcome is intercourse. Specifically: don’t get drunk, don’t get into bed with a guy, and don’t take off your clothes or allow them to be removed. … But suggest to a rape bureaucrat that female students should behave with greater sexual restraint as a preventive measure, and you might as well be saying that the girls should enter a convent or don the burka.
How would “greater sexual restraint” be a “preventive measure”? What would it prevent? If, in MacDonald’s view and the view of most female students, girls’ behavior does not lead to rape, but merely to “drunken hookups,” why should they be advised to modify it? What effect would “greater sexual restraint” have on “real rape,” as MacDonald calls it? If, as seems to be MacDonald’s view, “real rape” can only be by a stranger in a dark alley, “greater sexual restraint” on the part of women will do nothing to contain it. But they should, nevertheless, restrain themselves.
This, I believe, is MacDonald’s main point. Girls should restrain themselves. They shouldn’t be so slutty and drunk, not because they will get raped — it isn’t real rape if she’s slutty and drunk — but because it isn’t nice. And nice girls don’t get raped.
Actually, “greater sexual restraint” can indeed reduce rape — “stranger rape” and “date rape” — if exercised by men. But MacDonald’s purse-lipped admonitions are not directed at men. Nowhere in her article does she suggest that men should change, or, to play along with her hypothetical scenario, that they should be told to change by “rape industrialists.” Women must change, restrain themselves, and not get drunk in order to avoid being raped — sorry, “raped”. But men need not modify their behavior in order to avoid raping. Boys will be boys — they just can’t help it.
“Modern feminists,” says MacDonald, “defined the right to be promiscuous as a cornerstone of female equality.”
Did they? Isn’t it rather that they rejected a double standard condemning promiscuity in women but accepting it in men — a double standard that MacDonald’s piece embraces and perpetuates?
Mary Jackson is an editor for the New English Review, an online magazine of politics and culture, dedicated to celebrating the good in Western civilization and warning against that which would threaten it. Click here for the latest full-length articles, and here for the Iconoclast, the regularly updated Community Blog. Mary Jackson is also the author of Rape - a Hopeless Case?
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
90 Comments
jvon:I’m sorry, I think I’m missing something here. If a man and a woman have consensual sex, however drunkenly, why is it that the woman is being raped? Why not the man?
I would say that perhaps it is neither, and this problem is just as overblown as the original author suggests.
As for the terribly unfair burden that women must bear being labeled as “sluts” for these drunken hookups, I wonder if that truly is worse than running the risk of being called a rapist?
Apr 16, 2008 - 2:09 am Tito:Perhaps I didn’t read this as closely as Ms Jackson would wish, but I think she missed the point of the article she criticizes. From the bit she quotes, it sounds like Heather MacDonald was not talking about real rape at all. Rather she was criticizing the tendency of women calling bad sexual experiences, many of them fueled by excessive alcohol, rape. That is the reason for the quotation marks. The advice she gives does not protect a woman from real rape, but it most certainly does prevent the types of experiences that are turned into rape charges when regret and sobriety set in. Ms Jackson seems offended that MacDonald would criticize the so-called liberated sexual behavior of the modern university woman when men have always been guilty of such behavior. I suppose the two women are both against the double standard Ms Jackson brings up at the end of her piece. MacDonald seems to be arguing that if a behavior is bad, women should neither “accept” it nor engage in it. Mary Jackson seems to believe that by engaging in such behavior is liberating.
Apr 16, 2008 - 3:18 am Mary Jackson:but it most certainly does prevent the types of experiences that are turned into rape charges when regret and sobriety set in.
But according to MacDonald, the students aren’t turning these into rape charges. Right at the beginning of her article, MacDonald says Rape Crisis Centres are silent. Female students are not saying drunken hookups are rape, so what’s the problem? Why should they change their behaviour?
Well, they should change it because “drunken hookups” aren’t nice. Fair enough. But not fair enough, because she doesn’t criticise this behaviour in men, only in women.
MacDonald uses an article supposedly about a non-rape crisis to criticise the behaviour of women. But she doesn’t criticise men for doing exactly the same thing.
Apr 16, 2008 - 4:11 am Wayne:Mary,
Apr 16, 2008 - 5:22 am Mary Jackson:“But according to MacDonald, the students aren’t turning these into rape charges.” No, she says that they are not turning in these rape charges at the level that supports the political view (victimhood) of the feminists. However, the female students apparently feel regret over the ‘beer goggles’ sex, whereas the male students apparently do not. That is why the female students should change their behavior.
You also state that feminists “rejected a double standard condemning promiscuity in women but accepting it in men” in response to the MacDonald statement that feminists “defined the right to be promiscuous as a cornerstone of female equality”. Yes, feminists rejected the ‘double standard’ (which could also be viewed as one of the many gender asymmetries), but did not do so by demanding that the behavior of men improve (that might have brought back chivalry!), but by claiming the female right to behave as badly as males, just as MacDonald posits.
No, Wayne, not at all. All “feminists” ask is that the same behaviour, good or bad, is judged in the same way. MacDonald and, as I see it, all her supporters here and elsewhere condemn behaviour in women that they do not condemn in men.
Yes, women should have the right to behave as badly as men, and be judged only as badly as men and no worse. It doesn’t mean that either men or women should behave badly.
How much do I need to spell it out? It is wrong to go over the speed limit. But it is more wrong to fine some people for doing it and not fine others.
As for regret over “beer goggles” sex, that is not the same as rape, as everyone here acknowledges. Men also regret “beer goggles” sex, but they are not condemned for it as women are.
Very few women are bringing rape charges because of beer goggles sex. MacDonald knows this, and she even says it. But she thinks they should change their behaviour because she disapproves of their behaviour, while seemingly indifferent to, or at least resigned to, exactly the same behaviour in men.
Apr 16, 2008 - 5:58 am EW:It is right to behave responsibly and not blame others for your misfortunes, but others also have a responsibility to behave properly as well. It is a mutual duty we owe to our fellow man - an interdependence.
Apr 16, 2008 - 6:56 am Henway:Two wrongs do not make a right.
Appearing to condone male bad behaviour and expecting less of them while condemning the same in women is actually doing a disservice to the many men who behave well.
I don’t usually comment on things like this, but having read the original article, I did feel Mary Jackson might have mis-read a bit, to the extent that I had some trouble following her argument.
Heather MacDonald wrote, “… if the rape industrialists are so sure that foreseeable and seemingly cooperative drunken sex amounts to rape, there are some obvious steps that they could take to prevent it.”
So later, when MacDonald’s arguing the possibilities to avoid “campus rapes”, it’s clear she’s doing it based on the extremely broad definition that the well-funded “campus rape industry” uses. That definition, encompassing as it is, still doesn’t keep the center’s phones ringing since most of the “victims” of “beer-goggled” sex, regardless of the number of earnest pamphlets, do not tend to view or report it as rape, even if it’s regretted. These women do largely take responsibility for their own choices, and judge the outcomes accordingly. However, MacDonald points out that avoiding drunken sex will largely eliminate everything currently being classified as campus rape by those who stand to lose funding and visibility if the many-fewer instances of non-consensual, forcible rape (whether alcohol-influenced or not) were the pure focus of their efforts.
Since serving women is the principal, proclaimed mission of these rape crisis services, I don’t fault that MacDonald deals principally with the female “victim” side of the “rape” equation here, rather than what men could do to prevent being categorized by these wide definitions as rapists. That’s important, too, but it’s another article, perhaps including mention of Duke and lacrosse.
Apr 16, 2008 - 7:15 am Alan:Your closing comments seem to indicate that you didn’t read the last section you cited.
It begins:
“[I]f the rape industrialists are so sure that foreseeable and seemingly cooperative drunken sex amounts to rape, there are some obvious steps that they could take to prevent it.”
And then goes on to suggest some of those steps. Yet despite this introductory sentence, you seem confused about the author’s intention when she suggests sexual restraint as a way to reduce the amount of drunken sex.
Apr 16, 2008 - 7:18 am Mary Jackson:No, I did not misunderstand MacDonald’s argument. But it is she who is muddled. She wants to criticise women’s “sluttish” behaviour, by claiming it leads to bad consequences. But it doesn’t, or at least not to consequences felt by the women themselves to be bad.
The most she can claim is that the “rape crisis people” are making too much of it. Women should never get drunk or act in a sluttish way, not because they will be raped, but merely because “rape crisis centres” will make something of it that isn’t there.
She claims that if women behaved better there would be fewer “pseudo-rapes”, as defined by “rape industrialists”. But there wouldn’t, because women are not reporting those experiences as rape. So women’s behaviour will make no difference, either to stranger rape or date rape. The only thing it will do is reduce the amount of casual sex.
Maybe reducing casual sex on campus is a Good Thing. Students should spend more time in the library and less time in the bar and in bed with each other. But, if you think that, then why address yourself to only half the students, namely the female half?
Whichever way you look at it, MacDonald has a double standard, and one endorsed by all but one of the posters here.
Another glaring issue is MacDonald’s assumption, again shared by nearly everyone here, that there is simply no such thing as date rape. If women drink and act sluttish then it simply isn’t rape. Yes, it’s hard to prove, but to claim that it never happens is absurd. I thought such attitudes went out with the ark. I was wrong.
you seem confused about the author’s intention when she suggests sexual restraint as a way to reduce the amount of drunken sex.
No, no confusion at all. At the risk of repeating myself, yes sexual restraint would reduce the amount of drunken sex. But why only on the part of women, not at all on the part of men?
Apr 16, 2008 - 7:41 am Matt S.:I think the point is the continuation of the double standard as part of the solution.
Apr 16, 2008 - 8:03 am dan:There is no double standard, because there is no equality, you fool. These are differences clearly rooted in typical gender-specific relationships to sexual experience, themselves largely a consequence of anatomy. Everyone knows this is true; no conspiratorial council invented it. That individuals can delude themselves according to a code of conduct is no refutation of delusion. I am not a Muslim; I therefore am necessarily committed to the belief all Muslims are at least partially idiotic. Moreover, where is this Every man a stud philosophy espoused? I never actually hear it; I only hear it used as a rhetorical device to deflect blame from a girl for her slutty behavior. Have you never heard the term player, to take only a contemporary example? The fact is, the sensibility which encourages destigmatization is fraudulent and manipulative: the actual effects of the behavior are patently obvious to everyone, including the participants. The purpose is not equality and freedom, the purpose is confusion and destruction. It is incredible how the popularity of socialist tricks does nothing more than highlight and exaggerate the human impulse to rank egotism. What a bunch of fools.
Apr 16, 2008 - 9:07 am Mary Jackson:i>I think the point is the continuation of the double standard as part of the solution.
Oh, yes, without a doubt, that is what MacDonald would wish. But why doesn’t she just come out and say so?
Basically, she wants to lecture young women, but not young men, about their “sluttish” behaviour. The “overblown rape crisis” is just an excuse for MacDonald to criticise women. Not men, of course - they can’t help it.
There is no double standard, because there is no equality, you fool.
That’s me told. Heather MacDonald would be proud of you. And to be fair, at least you come straight out and say it, rather than wrapping it up in concern for women - a concern which vanishes as soon as they fail to conform to the Stepford Wifey ideal.
Apr 16, 2008 - 9:15 am George Bruce:So, Mary, please let us know. Are you in favor of young women getting drunk to the point that they allow themselves to be a public convenience?
Apr 16, 2008 - 9:54 am Mary Jackson:Are you in favor of young women getting drunk to the point that they allow themselves to be a public convenience?
No, but if they do, they should not be condemned for it any more (or less) than a man should.
I don’t know how many times I need to repeat this before it will sink in: I am not saying women should behave badly; I am rejecting a double standard that condemns bad behaviour in women while accepting the very same behaviour in men.
And however drunk the woman is, rape is always wrong. It may be difficult to prove, but it is always wrong.
Apr 16, 2008 - 10:07 am Smarty:These drunken sluts end up with buyer’s remorse and then call it rape, thus inflating numbers.
Apr 16, 2008 - 10:16 am Henway:Mary-
I’m still seeing an unresolved conflict here when you write that “bad sex” is “sex that is later regretted” and then comment of MacDonald, ” [s]he wants to criticise women’s “sluttish” behaviour, by claiming it leads to bad consequences. But it doesn’t, or at least not to consequences felt by the women themselves to be bad.” Either it’s regrettable and therefore bad, possibly worth avoiding, or not. Such regrets aren’t like rain that falls on all. They’re common and mostly survive-able, even laughable, but hardly an inevitable circumstance.
The talk about booze-fueled hookups doesn’t relate primarily to the real crime of rape, but rather to regrettable instances that may be within a woman’s control, as rape isn’t. If those instances are really what’s principally happening, and if young women regret the events enough, they can take the steps MacDonald notes or others of their own devising. They could choose to see the exercise of their own sexuality in another way. Or not. As can young men.
But as long as sexual violence and pregnancy inordinately impact females, they will be making decisions from a different perspective than men. I don’t think that has to necessarily mean bearing unequal responsibility for the exchange, but players who face the greatest consequences must take the game most seriously. If all consequences are equal, game on!
Apr 16, 2008 - 10:40 am mimritty:You say:”She wants to criticise women’s “sluttish” behaviour, by claiming it leads to bad consequences. But it doesn’t, or at least not to consequences felt by the women themselves to be bad.”
But in your own article you point out that casual drunken sex often DOES lead to consequences felt by the women themselves to be bad: “Heather MacDonald’s article sensibly draws a distinction between bad sex — sex that is later regretted — and rape.”
MacDonald is simply saying that women who don’t want what you yourself call “bad sex — sex that is later regretted,” probably would be better off not getting blindingly drunk and climbing into bed with strangers.
Makes sense to me.
Apr 16, 2008 - 11:00 am Mary Jackson:But as long as sexual violence and pregnancy inordinately impact females, they will be making decisions from a different perspective than men.
Then it is inconsistent of MacDonald to frown on sex education as she clearly does. And according to MacDonald, there isn’t any real sexual violence - or hardly any, certainly not for girls who “behave themselves”.
Pregnancy and rape aside, one of the main reasons why the consequences of casual sex are worse for women than for men is because of the double standard that condemns a woman with a past but not a man. And that double standard is embraced and perpetuated by MacDonald and her supporters.
Apr 16, 2008 - 11:03 am George Bruce:Well put, Henway. It is the women who suffer the worst consequences of drunken promiscuity, other than the false charge of rape, which falls almost exclusively on men. It is sound advise to counsel a young woman to protect herself, just as it is equally good to advise a young man to avoid situations that create the greatest risk of false accusations. It is the kind of advice one would give to a son or daughter, (or younger brother or sister.) Mary is caught up in the ideology of radical feminism that tells us that there are no difference between men and women, other that those that are “artificial” and “culturally imposed.” It is a subset of a greater radical belief in the perfectability of the species through political fiat. The evidence of everyday experience tells us differently.
Apr 16, 2008 - 11:17 am Mary Jackson:MacDonald is simply saying that women who don’t want what you yourself call “bad sex — sex that is later regretted,” probably would be better off not getting blindingly drunk and climbing into bed with strangers.
No she is not simply saying that. She’s saying that if they do, then they can’t claim to be raped and expect to be believed. Worse than that, she’s saying that getting blind drunk turns rape into non-rape.
And what about the men in all this? Does everyone posting on this site endorse the double standard as MacDonald does? It seems so. Must be an American thing.
Apr 16, 2008 - 11:22 am Assistant Village Idiot:I think MacDonald may not have made a distinction clearly enough and is being called out on it, justifiably. She does rail about bad female bad behavior primarily in the context of “see how this would be an unfair rape accusation.” But her overall disapproval, rape accusation or not, leaks out, and Jackson rightly picks up on that.
Insofar as the “(young) women behaving badly” take the same attitude as the “(older)campus rape industry,” MacDonald’s accusation is fair. The other young women, not so much.
Apr 16, 2008 - 11:45 am Mary Jackson:Assistant Village Idiot - precisely.
The bad sex/beer goggles thing happens to both men and women. It isn’t a big deal, at least not for me. But if all MacDonald wanted to do was dissuade young women from having beer-goggled bad sex, why not just say so? Why bring rape into it at all? Why not just say - directly to young women, and not through the hypothetical words of a “rape industrialist” - don’t get drunk or you could go to bed with a prince and end up with a frog.
Englishmen, perhaps American men too, joke: “What is the difference between a fox and a dog? About five pints.” MacDonald and her supporters, assuming they understood the Britspeak, might laugh indulgently at such a joke.
But suppose a woman were to make the same joke about a frog and a prince? Would MacDonald, and most of the posters here, laugh it off as “girls will be girls”?
I don’t think so.
There is a double standard. Hardly anyone has challenged that. Perhaps y’all think it’s OK?
Apr 16, 2008 - 12:33 pm EW:She (MacDonald) does rail about bad female bad behavior primarily in the context of “see how this would be an unfair rape accusation.” But her overall disapproval, rape accusation or not, leaks out, and Jackson rightly picks up on that.
Apr 16, 2008 - 12:33 pm SGT Ted:Exactly how I feel Assistant Village Idiot. Its her disapproval solely of women, and not the men they behave badly with that irritates me.
Young men and women should both be encouraged to behave well, and both for the same reason, that it is right and decent and good.
Why can’t something be addressed to bad behavior in women without men being dragged into it? In the casual sexual relationship, women have all the power; no means no, right? She didn’t have to spread her legs. Quit blaming men for womens poor decisions.
MacDonalds point isn’t merely about the sluts; it’s about the discord of a sexually permissive campus culture and feminist centered “Rape Crisis” centers that advocate and declare that, if the woman decides later that her drunken fling was rape, it’s rape and should be acted on as such, regardless of the womans own culpability in her encounter. All without saying what any 13 year old boy gets from his father: Life will be less complicated if you keep it in your pants.
It is precisely this radical feminist attitude that demeans women and asserts that they aren’t rational actors. It stems from the “all sex is rape” school of feminism ala McKinnon, a pioneer in gender feminism. They are victims of some horny guy, who deserves to be criminalized for her bad choice, if she so decides at a later date. While the woman is merely a victim of circumstance and not culpable, legally or morally.
There have been lives destroyed by such women who filed a rape charge rather than admit to their boyfriend or husband that they got drunk and cheated on them and they are aided and abetted in this by campus Rape Crisis centers.
And most men would laugh about a “frog and prince” joke involving alcoholic beverages. Because, unlike most feminists, we have a sense of humour about ourselves and our sexuality. Telling a joke isn’t condoning bad behavior; it is making fun of it.
Apr 16, 2008 - 1:09 pm colagirl:There is a double standard. Hardly anyone has challenged that. Perhaps y’all think it’s OK?
I don’t think it’s okay, but I do think it is to some extent inevitable unfortunately. As others here have pointed out the fact of the matter is, biologically speaking, women have always had the possibility of facing drastically greater consequences from casual sex than men do (although this is less true nowadays, and I’m not just talking about birth control–more on this in a bit) and it seems logical to me that the evolution of the double standard is at least partly rooted in this biological fact. The potential consequences are not equal, therefore the standard has evolved not to be equal.
Note that I did *not* say that this makes it good, fair or right; “biological” does not necessarily equal “good,” if it did then it would be perfectly acceptable for stepparents to deprive their stepchildren so that they could give more resources to their bio-kids. I don’t think there’s a single poster here who would argue that. However it *does* suggest, I think, that the “double standard” will be difficult to eradicate completely and, even if this is carried out, will be prone to reappear just when you think it’s gone for good.
Myself, I don’t think casual sex is a good idea for men OR women (I’m with EW on this one; I’d like to see *both* sexes exhorted to behave responsibly). And these days, it’s not uncommon (indeed, perhaps increasingly common) for some of those negative consequences to fall on men as well. I’m not just talking about false rape accusations although those are certainly bad enough; if you go to Dr. Helen’s blog, I’m sure you can easily find postings on the plight of men who have been slapped with paternity and child-support suits for children they didn’t know they had, or didn’t want to have, resulting from one-night stands. Again, this is why I would like to see *both* sexes exhorted to behave responsibly.
AVI’s analysis seems pretty much right on to me. The fact that MacDonald’s disapproval seems to be targeted at women may be rooted in the double standard; it could also be (and these things are not mutually exclusive by any means) that as a woman she tends to focus on the female side of the equation, i.e. “how ought women (like she is) to behave?” It would be interesting to find a publication dealing with casual sex, only written by a male and directed primarily at young men, to see if the tone is different.
Apr 16, 2008 - 1:36 pm Henway:No argument about the double standard here. It exists and it’s not fair, but knowing how it works so as to avoid the sharp end isn’t the same as condoning it, is it? If sexually active women incur ugly judgments, so do men who want to work with children. There are plenty of sideways looks and unfair assumptions to go around, and if things go badly, plenty who’ll claim someone had no business being/doing whatever it was in the first place.
However, I think the issue specifically raised of sex resulting from willful intoxication is a little different than simply having lots of sex partners. It’s using one’s freedom to choose insensibility and loss of motor skills NOW in a way that can abdicate freedom of choice over one’s body later to whomever happens to be around and more capable of action. Perhaps it will be friends dragging someone home to bed with an aspirin and glass of water in reach. Perhaps not, especially if the friends are also too drunk for volition.
While people are drinking or using, they exaggerate, weep, fall in love, rage, giggle, have brilliant notions, break things, and we know they don’t genuinely intend any of it. The issues of “drunken sluts” and rape get so conflated because the issue of unwillingness is central to the definition, and it gets much harder to determine when people chemically abandon their usual temperaments and will.
Apr 16, 2008 - 1:40 pm Roque Nuevo:I don’t like to butt in, but you may be interested in how a casual observer sees this thing.
For starters, Ms Jackson’s article was crystal-clear and very concise. She saw a basic error in the logic of the MacDonald book and attributes it to the blindness induced by her (MacDonald’s) ethics, which Ms Jackson identifies with the double standard that modern feminism strove to destroy.
All of this is supported with facts or reasoning. No one here has challenged either the facts or the reasoning that Ms Jackson uses. They only seem to argue in favor of the double standard or ignore the issue entirely in favor of arguing for some point of sexual morality. I never saw Ms Jackson give an opinion as to the morality of sexual behavior; she only demands that the same morality be applied to both sexes equally. It’s the oldest liberal demand in the books and people have trouble understanding what it means? Well…blarmy my kippers! Who’a thunk it?
What does all this mean? Are we so blinded that we can’t see such an obvious contradiction even when it’s shoved in our faces so clearly, as Ms Jackson does? What it the world are we trying to defend? How could such a thing happen in the first place?
Apr 16, 2008 - 1:59 pm Mary Jackson:Thoughtful and interesting comments from Colagirl and Henway. If MacDonald’s article even acknowledged that date rape can happen; and if she showed any signs of condemning “bad” behaviour in men, then that would be something.
But she doesn’t. As I said, if she is just concerned about women having bad sex - kissing too many frogs - why bring rape into it? Why, too, does she not make the point, as I would to a younger sister or friend, that if you get drunk, rape is harder to prove?
She doesn’t because her real aim is to condemn promiscuity in women. Fair enough - except it isn’t fair enough, because she doesn’t condemn it in men.
Colagirl says this double standard is “inevitable”. Well, it is while we accept it.
Apr 16, 2008 - 2:10 pm dan:Ha - there is much more truth in the argument “people are conditioned to think that women and men ought to be treated equally” than in the argument that “people are conditioned to believe in an unfair double standard.”
There is no double standard. There is no equality. I have a penis, you have a vagina. This is your starting point, and your ending point. I’m sorry if it’s not enough to make a reasonable career out of.
Apr 16, 2008 - 2:10 pm Mary Jackson:I have a penis
Cut the small talk.
Apr 16, 2008 - 2:36 pm mimritty:“She’s saying that if they do [get drunk and into bed], then they can’t claim to be raped and expect to be believed.”
You cite the official statistic that 1 in 4 college women are raped, and acknowledge that that’s so overstated as to be “nonsense.” Surely that suggests that more behavior is being “believed” to be rape, not less.
MacDonald also reports that at UVa only 23% percent of the subjects that the survey characterized as rape victims agreed that they had, in fact, been raped. Getting campus authorities to believe a rape occurred does not seem to be the problem. (”New York University’s Wellness Exchange counsels people to “believe unconditionally” in sexual-assault charges..”)
“And what about the men in all this? Does everyone posting on this site endorse the double standard as MacDonald does? It seems so. Must be an American thing.”
Cultural anthropology aside, it may simply be because we disagree about what MacDonald’s article says. For example, though not quoted in your piecee, her article talks about men acting thuggishly, and deserving censure when they take advantage of women who have incapacitated themselves. (Note again that she is NOT talking about rape here, but what you call “beer goggles”.)
Yes, her primary focus is on female accountability, but that is explicitly in response to what she perceives as the opposite double standard at work on campuses, which “holds that inebriation strips women of responsibility for their actions but preserves male responsibility not only for their own actions but for their partners’ as well.”
MacDonald’s article isn’t about rape, but about what she calls the “campus rape industry,” which she contends accepts ambiguous sexual behavior as rape, favors the female narrative, and punishes males for behavior in which both sexes sometimes participate willingly. Because she’s trying to counter that narrative, it can look lopsided if the context is stripped away.
Apr 16, 2008 - 4:15 pm Mary Jackson:MacDonald’s article isn’t about rape, but about what she calls the “campus rape industry,” which she contends accepts ambiguous sexual behavior as rape, favors the female narrative, and punishes males for behavior in which both sexes sometimes participate willingly.
If that were so, a good weapon against the “campus rape industry” would be to focus on the funding and compare it with the usage.
I totally accept, as I said early on in my article, that an organisation that is not used should not get so much funding.
Women aren’t crying rape. Rape crisis phones don’t ring. Cut the funding. No argument there. That should be the end of it.
So why the diatribe against “hookup culture”? What does it matter if no rape charges are being brought?
Well, it matters to MacDonald. Because she doesn’t like that women are getting drunk and screwing around.
Fine. Getting drunk and screwing around is not a Good Thing. Some may say it is a Bad Thing. But MacDonald, and most people posting here, seem to think it is an OK thing for a man but not for a woman.
Fine, if that’s your opinion. Be honest, like Dan, who says, and I quote:
I have a penis, you have a vagina. This is your starting point, and your ending point.
Just don’t pretend to be concerned about rape, that’s all. Admit it: nice girls don’t get raped.
Apr 16, 2008 - 4:47 pm Catalonia:Mary,
You WILL be assimilated. Embrace your sluttiness and all will be well.
Signed,
Apr 16, 2008 - 5:18 pm mimritty:A Big Talker
“Women aren’t crying rape. Rape crisis phones don’t ring. Cut the funding. No argument there. That should be the end of it.”
Did you read the article? That base was covered: it’s been decreed that the actual rate of reported rapes is immaterial. Women are counted as having been raped even when they don’t believe it themselves; rape is underreported because we live in “a rape culture, which condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as a norm”; the numbers don’t matter “because the movement is political, not empirical.” MacDonald goes where you say she should, and shows why the numbers argument is not — is not permitted to be — the end of it.
“Just don’t pretend to be concerned about rape, that’s all. Admit it: nice girls don’t get raped.”
You insist on conflating rape with the actual subject of the article. I wonder why.
Women of all sorts get raped. Rape is a situation over which women have no control, and therefore one’s niceness has nothing to do with it.
Also, apparently, some women go to bed in strange places with strange people and wake up not knowing if they had sex, who they had it with, whether they wanted it or not, and whether or not it was safe — and not because somebody slipped them a rufie, but because they put themselves in a rufie-like condition of their own volition. For women who enjoy that, no problem. For those who don’t, it’s a situation — unlike rape — that is entirely in their power to avoid. You call that being “nice,” I call it common sense and self-respect. Either way, I think it’s empowering.
Apr 16, 2008 - 8:30 pm mylai:Not being reported doesn’t mean date rapes are not being committed.
It’s the collective thinking of the Heather McDonalds in our society that may in fact be part of the reason why date rapes do not get reported. What she is in essence doing, is excusing boys who find themselves fortunate enough to be in a situation where a girl is drunk and perhaps unaware or unable to prevent sex from happening and then labeling the girl a slut. What an idiot.
So again the blame is on the girl to have “restraint” don’t drink, don’t do walk alleys in the dark, be afraid very afraid and if you do not follow - then be ashamed, be very ashamed because you are now a “slut” While “boys (on the other hand) will be boys” and as such are indeed completely incapable of any level of control when in the company of a drunk girl, thus any sex that happens is indeed the “girl’s fault.” What a dangerous and self-loathing attitude.
Let’s just set women back 40 years and throw all fairness out the window by reinstated that reprehensible double standard.
Poor Heather is seriously ill or suffering from fdls detachment. Not only does she have distain for members of her OWN sex, she apparently lumps ALL males into one big disgusting pen of filthy pigs never to be trusted.
Good for you Mary in concisely calling her on her bullsh!t.
Apr 17, 2008 - 12:19 am Gregory:Indeed. Methinks thou doth protest too much, Ms Jackson.
Men do not cry rape whenever we wake up and wonder what the hell we were up to last night. For some reason, some segments of society want women to do so. Ms Macdonald rails against these segments. QED.
Why complicate matters further? I can definitely agree that college or uni students are young, beered-up and stupid creatures. I know, and God knows, I was. I’m still a virgin, though - kept myself in my pants, no matter how beered-up I was. I don’t think it’s wrong or hypocritical of me to demand young women to do the same and save all of us some trouble.
Apr 17, 2008 - 12:27 am dan:“Not being reported doesn’t mean date rapes are not being committed.
It’s the collective thinking of the Heather McDonalds in our society that may in fact be part of the reason why date rapes do not get reported.”
ha! of course there are more rapes, date- or not. how could there not be if there is more opportunity for one to be committed? thus the problem with the “no such thing a slut!” rallying cry of incoherent brats like Jackson. if a girl changes her mind 5 seconds before the act and communicates it, it is rape. but only a fool would recognize that a little more forethought would deliver many potential rape victims from this sudden, and less sudden, turnabouts.
What exactly is the resistance to this idea that women ought to be chaste? Ought not men be chaste? It’s not as though there’s some village synod waiting to put you in the stockades if the evil pastor accuses you of sluttiness. This is what I don’t get: it’s obvious to any guy that girls’ behavior is much freer, and there is no social consequence for it at all. None - except these illusory ones that can be attributed to “society,” and then become a rhetorical weapon against anyone who try to “control” you.
And yet, public oppobrium has its utility. Rather like drug illegality: do you really think there aren’t plenty of people who don’t even entertain the thought of taking heroin because they are afraid they’ll get into trouble? Do you doubt that heroin has a specific biological effect on the human body, apart from however society characterizes its use? You *will* become addicted to it, and that *will* have certain well-understood effects on you, even if everyone around you is saying “thatta girl!” and Sam Waterson is selling it on tv. Why is it supposed that sexual behavior has no other component other than what “they” think about it? And who are all these weak-minded people whose inner lives are controlled by these things as if there was a Gestapo thought enforcement bureau around every corner?
And besides, what difference does it make? The odds that your current girlfriend or wife, if she’s attractive and came of age in the 90s-2000s, has slept with a few dozen guys is very, very high. Is that not slutty enough for you? How many would you like, 150? 1500?
Either you people are liars, or you’re just pathetic. For God’s sake, shut up. Heather McDonald isn’t insightful, she’s just saying what is blindingly obvious.
Apr 17, 2008 - 5:38 am Jim:The number of college women who have been “raped” turns on the definition of “rape.” How should we classify sex that is not forced, but not completely consensual either? Let’s look at two examples to see why determining how many women have been raped is so difficult.
Two college students are making out. Both are moderately intoxicated and very aroused. Without her express consent, the man penetrates the woman. She does not want to have sex, but she does not resist.
Is this rape? If so, how severely should he be punished?
Same situation, only this time, the woman mounts the man without his express consent. He does not want to have sex, but he does not resist.
Is this rape? If so, how severely should she be punished?
Apr 17, 2008 - 5:52 am Mary Jackson:Jim, I’d say in those cases it wasn’t rape. Certainly such cases are hard to prove.
I think my main point in writing this article was not to define rape, but merely to demonstrate Heather MacDonald’s double standard.
Girls themselves are not defining these experiences as rape, so there isn’t actually a problem of girls crying rape when they’ve had casual sex. So why does MacDonald write as if there is? Because she disapproves of casual, drunken sex wants to lecture girls about their sluttish behaviour. Fine, if you want to do that. But she doesn’t lecture the men, because she doesn’t see anything wrong in men indulging in exactly the same behaviour.
This is what the double standard means. Opposing the double standard doesn’t mean being in favour of promiscuity - it means judging men and women in the same way. I shouldn’t have to keep saying this, but there are posters on this thread who seem unable to grasp this elementary point.
I’m still a virgin, though - kept myself in my pants, no matter how beered-up I was. I don’t think it’s wrong or hypocritical of me to demand young women to do the same and save all of us some trouble.
No, of course it isn’t hypocritical. Restraint, and for some young people even chastity, might save them a lot of heartache.
What would be hypocritical, of course, is to have bedded lots of the “other kind” of girl but to demand chastity in your wife. This is the old double standard, which I thought was confined to the Muslim world, but which I am finding alive and well and posting on this blog.
Apr 17, 2008 - 6:33 am FP:Who gave this mary jackson space here (at pjm)?
That would be the real problem, for it is obvious that jackson is a problem. It is obvious that she tortures arguments to legtimize her larger goals (the false premise ones that root feminism).
So one must ask –since I assure it is not the thing itself that jackson argues about– where does it end?
Where is the end game of “feminism” (you culture of dumb men, for genetic reasons)?
Apr 17, 2008 - 7:27 am FP:>Admit it: nice girls don’t get raped.
They probably don’t as often.
So what’s the end game? ‘casue we’re certainly not just going to, golly gee, “make people equal”.
Apr 17, 2008 - 7:34 am mylai:Dan,
You are missing an important element to Heather’s article, the “double-standard.”
Her apparent opinion of, “dress like a slut, act like a slut, get treated like a slut,” and thus deserve anything that happens whether or not the woman can coherently object to sex or not. This charge is, obviously, still pervasive in our society and continues to hurt women yet still acceptable.
The flip side to her double-standard is to excuse all men from any sexual fault. releasing him of physically, morally, or intellectually determining whether said “slut” is capable (or not) of consenting to sex. Which basically feeds into the old addage that women deserve what they get.
This is something a man will never understand unless by some thunder bolt strike of God he becomes a woman for say a few months. Which isn’t a bad idea in theory and would do a great deal in the way of experiencing and completely understanding what it is to be female, in the physical sense as well as emotionally…the whole nine yards so to speakand live to tell about it. And before the guys go completely batsh!t on me, the opposite would be rather interesting for us as well.
Apr 17, 2008 - 8:12 am SGT Ted:Well, if we’re going to talk about “date rape” let us also talk about the 41-50% of rape allegations that are admitted to be false by the accuser in order to have an alibi, seek revenge, or obtaining sympathy and attention.
Apr 17, 2008 - 8:28 am dan:“whether or not the woman can coherently object to sex or not. This charge is, obviously, still pervasive in our society and continues to hurt women yet still acceptable.”
except i’m attempting to cut through this. i understand some men use this as a way to excuse their own inexcusable behavior; i do not disagree with you. what i object to is the failure to recognize the fact that this is already transparent, and has been rendered as harmless as it is going to be. the notion that all such sensibilities arise from ideology or conspiracy, however, is mooted by a simple observation of reality: women and men are different with respect to sexual consequences. the social rules will reflect these to some degree. inequality, in this respect as all others, is not ultimately a result of ideology, it is the reflection of reality. i agree that distortions inhere in how this reflection is expressed, but the fact is acting, dressing, behaving like a woman who does not seem to respect these underlying dynamics, which everyone can feel and does feel, is recognized as such on an animal level. it may not mitigate or excuse criminality, but why is it objectionable to point out that it does contribute to it? After all, the men involve ought not be absolved of their role in it either.
Apr 17, 2008 - 8:33 am Tony:Mary Jackson on April 16th @ 2.36pm:
“I have a penis.
Cut the small talk.”
I’m sorry but that little smartass comment at another poster pretty much sums up where this person is really coming from. Its the same old feminist “oh yeah? well men are worse” hocum dressed up to look like a real argument. A lame article and a drop in PJM’s usually high standards.
Apr 17, 2008 - 8:52 am Mary Jackson:Dear, oh dear. You men have no sense of humour. Must be the hormones.
Apr 17, 2008 - 9:08 am Tony:“You men have no sense of humour”…??
Taking my comment into account the grand total of people who referred to your childlike “small penis” joke comes to, well, one. Your use of the plural “men” in your repost proves the point I think.
Your comment section stands out because you just can’t seem to be able to let any commenter who disagrees with you go unanswered. Presumably its because you feel they disagree with you only because they are too stupid to understand your point and not that they are, in fact, entitled to a contrary view.
My apologies for intruding on your sermon.
Apr 17, 2008 - 11:03 am dan:she is a symptom of what she claims to provide a cure.
i regret that the longer i live the more a tiny wink of sympathy for the mental health ward of the gulag. as yuri bezmenov says in his hopefully famous youtube discussions, “you cannot get rid of these people: they are contaminated. even if you tell them that white is white and black is black, even if you show them pictures and provide proof, evidence; even if you take them by force to the Soviet Union and show them concentration camp, they will refuse to belive it - but when the military boot crashes their balls, then! they will believe it. but not until then, that is the tragic of the situation.”
well, the proverbial military boot is coming down. in my opinion it is an unnecessarily unhappy situation, abetted by the latter half of this person’s drivel, and made even more plain in her comments. you all know it, i know it, she knows it. but she is a coward. but hey, at least it is a beautiful day outside!
Apr 17, 2008 - 12:04 pm mylai:Dan: “except i’m attempting to cut through this. i understand some men use this as a way to excuse their own inexcusable behavior; i do not disagree with you.
what i object to is the failure to recognize the fact that this is already transparent, and has been rendered as harmless as it is going to be. ”
Harmless to whom? Men or women?
Dan: “the notion that all such sensibilities arise from ideology or conspiracy, however, is mooted by a simple observation of reality: women and men are different with respect to sexual consequences. the social rules will reflect these to some degree. inequality, in this respect as all others, is not ultimately a result of ideology, it is the reflection of reality.”
And this is ok?
Dan: “i agree that distortions inhere in how this reflection is expressed, but the fact is acting, dressing, behaving like a woman who does not seem to respect these underlying dynamics, which everyone can feel and does feel, is recognized as such on an animal level.”
Isn’t the above statement yet another which excuses men’s behavior?
Dan: “it may not mitigate or excuse criminality, but why is it objectionable to point out that it does contribute to it?”
Oh it isn’t objectionable to point it out. What is at the core of Mary’s issue with Heather is in pointing it out that Heather saying what she does is saying that we, as females, have to live with the idea that all men are predators and will both harm us physically and berate us verbally (whore, slut, tramp, etc.) whenever they want - so just accept that being a female comes with very risks. Couldn’t that also be pointed out?
I should think that men wouldn’t appreciate that kind of labeling… basically as one of being potential rapists and boors.
That freedom i.e., either drinking a bit too much, being free to wear what she chooses is dangerous at a social gatherings. Are you, by suggesting that “it is what it is” and nothing will ever change just continually relegating females a different standard of freedom than is afforded to men? Suggesting it is “reality” or to get use to it there again excuses the males. It’s no different to saying females will have to constantly be on guard for their safety both physically and emotionally in being around men because they WILL attempt to rape us. That women must behave in “this” way and only this way in order to be safe from men? Is that a cool way to live? I think not.
Can “reality” be changed? I think it can and should. If one segment of our humanity’s freedom to experiment is put at risk for just being a woman then what are we REALLY saying about that other segment of humanity - the men?
Heather’s type of double-standard thinking is what continues to feeds into the militant feminist’s agenda = “ALL men are dogs, ALL men are potential rapists.” A label in which some of the men rail at in this thread. Yet, the attidudes they express really seem to add to the perception.
I, for one, would like to think that all men are not dogs, or evil predator rapists and that there are guys out there who, rather than take sexual advantage of a drunk girl because “it’s” available with little or no work, will wait until she sobers up to have sex so she remembers what happened which will in turn save HIM from being accused of rape.
Apr 17, 2008 - 12:12 pm dan:i think we basically agree here mylai my friend.
Dan: “i agree that distortions inhere in how this reflection is expressed, but the fact is acting, dressing, behaving like a woman who does not seem to respect these underlying dynamics, which everyone can feel and does feel, is recognized as such on an animal level.”
‘Isn’t the above statement yet another which excuses men’s behavior?’
no - it doesn’t excuse it. i was just addressing the girl half of the equation, that’s all.
Apr 17, 2008 - 4:17 pm Jim:“I’d say in those cases it wasn’t rape. Certainly such cases are hard to prove.”
Legally, these cases may or may not be rape. Or it may be rape for the man, but not the woman. It varies from state to state.
You are right in that such cases are hard to prove. And that is the problem. The law is getting into areas where the law has no business being. There is no physical evidence of any misdeed (since both parties were aroused), so it will come down to who the jury believes if it ever goes to trial. The courts cannot even pretend to be able to accurately sort out these cases, therefore, there should be a stricter standard of what rape is before the legal system is involved.
Apr 17, 2008 - 7:18 pm harmonicminer:Uh… last time I looked, women have MUCH more to lose from casual sexual hookups than men.
Like it or not, short of actual rape, women decide whether or not sex will happen. If it was up to men, it would happen a lot more often. It’s not “fair” or “right”, it’s just a fact of nature, the denial of which is a peculiar artifact of the fem-lib secular left, a denial which is not supported by the sociobiologist secular left. (Can’t you lefties get together and agree on something for once?)
The original article was AIMED at women and was primarily ABOUT women, in light of these facts, not at men, which may be why it didn’t provide the obligatory “and you boys better behave, too” punchline that Mary seems to want.
Apr 17, 2008 - 9:46 pm Gregory:Ms Jackson and mylai; you are both missing something rather critical here, I think;
Consider this - Ms MacDonald is cheesed off with the whole ‘campus rape’ business and the large number of so-called rapes that are not really rapes. She asserts that many of them can be directly attributed to college-aged young women acting like idiots. She then says that they should stop acting like idiots.
So, you ask, why does she not ask men to do the same?
Hmm, could it be because (a) by and large, college-aged young men do not cry rape after a fuzzy experience? More than likely, said men would shake off their hangover (a process that may take several hours, or even days), and then yak it up with their fellow idiots. “Hey, man, me and this chick really got it on last night…but I can’t remember a thing! Dang!” or (b) her article had nothing to do with young loutish men all all to do with young loutish women. After all, if I wrote something on men’s rights, I won’t necessarily have to speak about women’s rights, except in a compare and contrast.
I do not believe the only answer is (c) Ms MacDonald adheres to a double standard where men can act like boors and women cannot.
I could be wrong. She could in fact be making the point that men can act like men and not suffer unduly for it for the most part, whereas women must expect consequences if they tried to act like something or someone they’re not, namely college louts.
If that is the case she intends to present, I am afraid that I may well agree with her. Men and women do think and react differently to similar circumstances.
Apr 17, 2008 - 9:48 pm FP:This notion that wimmin are oppressed on campus or anywhere by rape (or anything) is absurd and another example of the glaring failure and distopian disater that is democracy and its child feminism.
‘Tis absurd foilks.
Now go drink your beer.
Apr 18, 2008 - 2:14 am Mary Jackson:Hmm, could it be because (a) by and large, college-aged young men do not cry rape after a fuzzy experience?
The flaw in that argument is that college-age young women by and large do not cry rape after a fuzzy experience either. Those rape crisis phones aren’t ringing, as MacDonald herself says in her opening paragraph.
What’s going in isn’t generally rape (although date rape can happen) and neither the men nor the women are saying it is. What is going on is lots of drunken sex, and lots of people “acting like louts”.
MacDonald condemns this behaviour in women and not at all in men. All her criticisms of “slutty” behaviour about girls drinking a lot and going with men they don’t know. There is no criticism of men drinking a lot and going with girls they don’t know. None whatsoever.
If, as you and some others impy, MacDonald is merely concerned for girls’ welfare - that they should avoid having sex they later regret - why does she not address them - and this issue - direcly? Why put her words into the mouth of a hypothetical “rape industrialist”? Indeed why mention rape at all?
Because her concern is not to advise and help the girls. It is to condemn their behaviour, while accepting as inevitable exactly the same behaviour in men. And she isn’t even honest enough to say so directly, as some of the more unreconstructed men posting here have done.
Apr 18, 2008 - 2:17 am mylai:Gregory,
Considering that the college rape hot-lines are NOT ringing, Heather, herself gets the award for biggest douchebag in writing her pointless diatribe about women crying rape after she might just possibly HAVE been raped. With laws being rather vague, perhaps many girls were reluctant to come forward. While she has every right to write whatever BS she wants about everyone she wants, who exactly is she to know the situation in every case to make such blanket generalizations? What she does is really rather naive, and assinine to suggest that every case IS the same. She is just. simply. an. idiot. One can easily suspect that “Heather” might even be a man writing this silly one-sided nonsense. As we all know, “hook-ups” consist of two partners. Condemning the freedom of college age girls to dress the way they want and drink is just bizarre.
More significantly, “Heather” and her clone’s way of thinking is rapidly going bye-bye. The “rape” laws are becoming LESS vague. According to yet another state added to a growing list of states in which…when a girl says “no” during intercourse and her partner does not stop, HE can and will be accused of rape. Which pretty much kinda covers her waking up from the middle of her beer coma to find herself having sex she didn’t know she didn’t want.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041604310.html
Maybe now those college “hot-lines” will be ringing.
Apr 18, 2008 - 8:07 am CoolCzech:Mary Jackson:
“And what about the men in all this? Does everyone posting on this site endorse the double standard as MacDonald does? It seems so. Must be an American thing.”
Indulge in bias, much? Must be a Brit thing.
Your statements that no matter how much a girl drinks, she doesn’t deserve rape is obvious. But you miss other obvious points:
If the boy AND the girl drink so much neither can give (sober) consent, yet have sex… has anyone been raped?
If a boy drinks himself to oblivion and has sex with a sober girl… has HE been raped?
There are no wonderfully easy answers to these situations, because (for starters) rape is an act committed against the victim’s WILL, and according to the perpetrators WILL. But what if both wills are impaired? A drunk has abdicated their will, put it on pause. Who is to say the rapist wasn’t drunk, too? Who’s to say the victim didn’t set out to drink herself into just enough intoxication to overcome her sexual inhibitions? Are 18 year old boys, themselves likely intoxicated, really the best judges of a girl’s blood alcohol levels?
Really, the most rational conclusion is: people shouldn’t get drunk. That would be a wonderful topic for colleges to include in their “litle blue books.”
As for your constant harping that girls be judged the same as boys, the only thing is, girls are not the same as boys. Not too many boys will object to being bedded while under the influence by an attractive girl, even if she WAS sober. They simply as a class have a different emotional reaction to such a scenario. They also won’t get pregnant, nor have to deal with the emotional and other lasting consequences. Stricter societal norms associated with girls’ sexual behavior have always been for their protection, not to punish them. The whole campus rape industry, and the Feminist obsession with date rape, would seem to underscore that girls need greater protection than boys when it comes to sexual exploitation.
Apr 18, 2008 - 11:28 am Mary Jackson:As for your constant harping that girls be judged the same as boys, the only thing is, girls are not the same as boys.
Well, that’s OK then. Never mind different judgements, let’s have different laws for men and women, as the Muslims do. Why not? They are “different” after all?
So wanting to be judged in the same way as a man for exactly the same conduct, good or bad, is “harping” is it? Then I’m a harpie.
Stricter societal norms associated with girls’ sexual behavior have always been for their protection, not to punish them.
The hell they have. Well, if they have, why not go the whole hog and put them in burkas “for their protection”.
Really, the most rational conclusion is: people shouldn’t get drunk. That would be a wonderful topic for colleges to include in their “litle blue books.”
People? That’s a bit “feminist” isn’t it? MacDonald wouldn’t approve of this gender-neutral language, neither would most posters here. What you really meant to say was “women shouldn’t get drunk”.
too many boys will object to being bedded while under the influence by an attractive girl, even if she WAS sober. They simply as a class have a different emotional reaction to such a scenario.
How many times - those rape crisis phones ain’t ringing. So girls don’t mind a drunken shag either. But MacDonald, you, and many other posters here, mind girls who don’t mind it - they’re slags, aren’t they? Not the men though, for some reason.
Apr 18, 2008 - 12:16 pm mylai:What I think really should happen is (since I’ve no idea if it does happen) for the male population starting at the JR High/High School level and continuing into College is to be educated in ways that truly protect them i.e., “consent is the law”, “no means no” and “stop means stop right now - not when YOU are finished” and most importantly, being drunk will not save you as a defense if a girl accuses you of rape.
As per a few in this thread, there still seems to be that tad bit of “boys will be boys” and girls should bare the burden…according to some long-ago archaic societal norm type double standard thang going on.
The more you know…
Apr 18, 2008 - 12:17 pm FP:…Instead of focusing on any supposed problems of Heather MacDonald you should be focusing on the problems of ‘mylai’ and mary jackson…
Apr 18, 2008 - 12:35 pm Doesn't Matter:Interesting discussion going on here. But what does the drunken hook-up culter teach boys?
Boys learn that a drunk girl is much more likely to hook-up than a sober girl. Some (perhaps most) of these girls will regret it in the morning. Very, very few will decide later that it was in fact rape (some of those may decide during).
So boys will learn to weigh the possibility of a good time with the possibility of going to jail.
So, what’s it worth to you boys? Is a 99% chance of a good time (yes, unfortunately most guys think drunken sex is a good time) worth a 1% chance of going to jail?
Granted those are my made up odds, but I’d like to think I’m in the ball park.
My guess is that there’s a lot of guys who don’t even take the rape side of the equation into consideration. So long as the girl is into it, he keeps moving to the next base.
Apr 18, 2008 - 1:09 pm FP:>…the male population starting at the JR High/High School level and continuing into College is to be educated…
…and most importantly, being drunk will not save you as a defense if a girl accuses you of rape.
>
Um no actually. On many counts…
Number one-) It is hypocrisy to say drunkeness means no longer “consenting adult” then say drunk boys are consenting to being
dasdarly rapists.
Number two-) There is not, nor has there ever been, a “rape crisis” on campus or anywhere else. It is quite frankly a sex
fantasy of wimmin writ into policy (by ever defering chivalrous ignorant men).
(If there are some mindless sadistic animal –real rapers– out there –who comprise the class the rape stats expose– they are a tiny minority [of often ethnics and _low people_, ie liberal created /protected classes] and the side effect of feminism’s socialization methods [eg bad mother and /or female nurture]. Further, importantly, these types are an argument for _why eugenics is good, not why feminism is_; Ie we don’t need to ‘liberate females –who are a problem in and of themselves even before massive enboldment –we need to get rid of bad males and bad ‘nurture syndromes’[usually mother vectored].)
Number three-) Nobody appointed you types overseer-fascist brainwasher “de-re-constructors” of society.
Feminist are profoundly self entitled, pushy and unconstitutional in intent and indeed (on top of being incorrect and tortured in their arguments). They –without any sense that some one would say no– assert how children and people should be indoctrinated by over seer elites. (It simply is infuriating that they think that highly of themselves and that little of the male goofballs who fougth so many wars to prevent exactly that apporach to society.) Note that if high IQ men –who are smarter and more fair minded than feminism by a long shot– stood up and said that society should be inodoctrinated and brainwashed, by social engineering brainwashing methods they would be called bully fascist oppressors (though they make more sense than feminism).
Like I said, just on principle, something aint right with feminism’s whole vibe.
—-
“the male population… is to be educated… ”
—-
Reconstrucion is something occupying armies do to shelled towns.
Think about what feminism is and its approach to your goofbnall _god forsaken_ society of anti ‘darwinian’ nit wits.
Apr 18, 2008 - 1:16 pm mylai:doesn’t matter,
Which really is why laws are changing in defense of girls who find themselves in sexual situations while drunk, because boys don’t care enough NOT to have sex with drunk chicks, thinking that they will always get away with it. Then find themselves in situation where they have to defend their bad decision.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041604310.html
Boys beed to know precisely what the laws are, going forward. Not knowing is no longer an excuse.
Apr 18, 2008 - 1:26 pm CoolCzech:Mary Jackson:
“Well, that’s OK then. Never mind different judgements, let’s have different laws for men and women, as the Muslims do. Why not? They are “different” after all?”
- Well, then let’s drop programs on campuses for sexually protecting only women. Why not? You seem to be arguing men and women are not “different,” after all?
“So wanting to be judged in the same way as a man for exactly the same conduct, good or bad, is “harping” is it?”
- Societal norms for girls are stricter because girls have more to lose. It’s not a matter of “judgment” for judgment’s sake. The people that pay the price for girls behaving like boys are… girls. THEY are the ones that face the unwanted child, or the trauma (mental and physical) of abortion.
“Then I’m a harpie.”
- Nolo contendere…
[Stricter societal norms associated with girls’ sexual behavior have always been for their protection, not to punish them. - CoolCzech]
“The hell they have. Well, if they have, why not go the whole hog and put them in burkas “for their protection”.”
- That would be extreme. Expecting personal responsibility does not equal Burka. Human biology has made women the vulnerable partners in sexual activity.
[Really, the most rational conclusion is: people shouldn’t get drunk. That would be a wonderful topic for colleges to include in their “litle blue books.” - CoolCzech]
“People? That’s a bit “feminist” isn’t it? MacDonald wouldn’t approve of this gender-neutral language, neither would most posters here. What you really meant to say was “women shouldn’t get drunk”.”
- No, I meant that people shouldn’t get drunk. Drunk boys shouldn’t accost drunk girls, should they?
“…those rape crisis phones ain’t ringing. So girls don’t mind a drunken shag either. But MacDonald, you, and many other posters here, mind girls who don’t mind it - they’re slags, aren’t they? Not the men though, for some reason.”
- Perhaps the girls mind the drunken slag when the little strip of paper turns blue 8 weeks later? You seem to confuse concern for girls with misogyny. Must be another one of those Brit things…
Apr 18, 2008 - 1:26 pm CoolCzech:Mylai:
“As per a few in this thread, there still seems to be that tad bit of “boys will be boys” and girls should bare the burden…according to some long-ago archaic societal norm type double standard thang going on.”
- It doesn’t MATTER if girls should or should not bear the greater burden in sexual relationships. The simple fact of the matter is that emotionally, physically (i.e., pregnancy), and in terms of their future (i.e., becoming single Moms, by the millions, with no Daddy in sight), they DO.
Apr 18, 2008 - 1:32 pm Mary Jackson:emotionally, physically (i.e., pregnancy), and in terms of their future (i.e., becoming single Moms, by the millions, with no Daddy in sight), they DO
Strange, then, that the likes of MacDonald is sniffy about sex/contraception education.
Personally, I’ve never “borne the burden” of a drunken shag, any more than the men have. But that’s because I don’t accept the double standard, which is most of what that burden is about.
By the way, can’t a man think to wear a condom? If he doesn’t, can he moan if a girl gets pregnant and he didn’t want her to?
Mutual responsibility. Good behaviour from both men and women. That’s the ideal. But failing that, then judge men and women in the same way.
With a couple of exceptions, I can see I’m getting nowhere here. What a bunch of knuckle-dragging rednecks.
Apr 18, 2008 - 2:04 pm mylai:CoolCzech,
I agree with you. Yes, women DO bear the greater burden physically, and emotionally when they are the victim of drunk sex that they may or may not have agreed with. Heather’s generalized b!tch point is that a girl who drinks, gets drunk and finds herself having sex (that she mmay or may not remember), is completely her own fault. This article and sentiment is just that - a generalization of the “situation.” My point is that NO, it takes a penis and vagina and the CONSENT of both parties to have sex and if said girl doesn’t remember and thinks it may have been a part of unwilling sex but also drunk, she has every right to claim it as rape.
Since our Justice system understands the issue of consent better that idiot Heather and makes the man’s share of this type of drunk sex a legal problem for HIM. Because our Justice system does realize that some men (someone said perhaps 99%) would not think twice about banging an unconscious girl. However, many men and some idiot women think the LEGAL part of the burden for the man is terribly unfair - basically saying that men should not only NOT have to claim responsibility to the sex he just had with a girl who passes out during sex but also claim the right to feel free to think that drunk-girl probably deserved it because “good girls aren’t suppose to get drunk.” This is basically Heather’s argument. Which Mary rightfully thinks is unreasonable.
Thankfully the laws on consent and the INability to give consent do not adhere to the opinions of our brilliant Heather and those who think as she does.
Apr 18, 2008 - 2:34 pm David:“Must be an American thing.”
“which I thought was confined to the Muslim world,”
“Dear, oh dear. You men have no sense of humour. Must be the hormones.”
“With a couple of exceptions, I can see I’m getting nowhere here. What a bunch of knuckle-dragging rednecks.”
Mary,
Your responses indicate that you struggle with many issues, the expression of which reveal you as a biased bigot. This and your muddled logic disqualify your views from serious consideration. Amusingly, your key contention is a call for equality and not unfairly focusing on one and not the other, the girl and not the boy equally in this case, yet you are quick to do the same thing on other issues. You condemn Americans, yet you fail to mention Albanians or Japanese who may have similar views. You argue for equal treatment of the sexes, with special condemnation of “double standards”, yet you freely use them yourself “You men have no sense of humour. Must be the hormones.” That seems to imply there is some innate difference between boys and girls? Surely such a premise is an anathema to you.
Apr 18, 2008 - 4:07 pm Mary Jackson:Albanians???
Apr 18, 2008 - 4:32 pm CoolCzech:Mary Jackson:
“Personally, I’ve never “borne the burden” of a drunken shag, any more than the men have. But that’s because I don’t accept the double standard, which is most of what that burden is about.”
- Well, that, AND you were damn lucky you didn’t get pregnant…
Apr 18, 2008 - 5:25 pm CoolCzech:Mary Jackson:
“Albanians???”
Don’t be so snide about small countries. People named CoolCzech might easily take offense. Besides, most people - women included - live in small countries. One is named “England.”
Apr 18, 2008 - 5:28 pm David:Mary Jackson:
Albanians???
Just a random example.
As your premise, as I understand it, appears to be that it is a “double-standard” to suggest that girls should moderate their promiscuous behavior without applying the same comments and equal time to the behavior of boys, how can you justify singling out “Americans”?
Put another way, it is inconsistent to complain about stereotypes resulting from double standards on issues related to gender from a feminist point of view while succumbing to similar stereotypes relating to nationalities, and even gender as I note you also mention men commenting on your piece as being addled by hormones; don’t you feel equally obligated to equate woman and their hormones?
If a commenter similarly dismissed your views as being colored by “pre-menstrual” or estrogen influenced female hysteria, I expect you would howl. (And I would sympathize as I expect your views do not fluctuate with your hormones.)
Apr 18, 2008 - 6:32 pm Mary Jackson:you also mention men commenting on your piece as being addled by hormones;
It’s called irony.
Don’t worry about it.
Apr 18, 2008 - 9:08 pm FP:Mary Jackson:
you also mention men commenting on your piece as being addled by hormones;
It’s called irony.
Don’t worry about it.
========
========
I know.
Some of the arguments made by people are just goofy –and counter productive. (Eg cool czech olde tyme protectionism; it is a root of feminism’s success.)
Yay for democracy. (sarcasm)
Apr 19, 2008 - 3:15 am George Bruce:mylai said:
“Which really is why laws are changing in defense of girls who find themselves in sexual situations while drunk, because boys don’t care enough NOT to have sex with drunk chicks, thinking that they will always get away with it. Then find themselves in situation where they have to defend their bad decision.”
“Since our Justice system understands the issue of consent better that idiot Heather and makes the man’s share of this type of drunk sex a legal problem for HIM. Because our Justice system does realize that some men (someone said perhaps 99%) would not think twice about banging an unconscious girl. However, many men and some idiot women think the LEGAL part of the burden for the man is terribly unfair - basically saying that men should not only NOT have to claim responsibility to the sex he just had with a girl who passes out during sex but also claim the right to feel free to think that drunk-girl probably deserved it because “good girls aren’t suppose to get drunk.” This is basically Heather’s argument. Which Mary rightfully thinks is unreasonable.”
So.. if they are both drunk, which one gets a life destroying felony charge? And what if he is drunk and she is relatively sober? Think carefully before answering. We don’t want any double standards here.
I am looking forward (not really) to the case where some bimbo gets slobbering drunk, wakes the next morning with a pounding headache, can’t remember who or how many people she banged the night before, can’t find her dress, let alone her panties, stumbles out of her front door into the grip of the police while TV cameras roll, is accused of multiple counts of felony sexual assault and goes to prison for twelve years.
To paraphrase John Cleese as Dennis Moore; this gender equality thing is harder than I thought.
Apr 19, 2008 - 12:57 pm nik:The most distressing double standard is that if both male and female are drunk to the point of not being in control and/or unable to recall clearly what happened (or how), feminists demand that the female’s version be believed. Why? How is this justified?
And not only do feminists and their enablers default to a belief that the woman is giving an accurate version of what happened, these days they even encourage her to call what happened “rape”. This explains why the rape crisis lines are unused yet the number of “rapes” are reportedly so high.
For the record, I’m 24, female Ivy grad who simply does not believe there is such a thing as “date” rape. That anyone could suggest that a quarter of college females have been raped is absurd–and it demeans the horror that is rape–the real kind. The perpetuation of self-imposed victimhood by feminists is counterproductive to the stated aim of raising a generation of strong, independent women who can hold their own in the situations of equality demanded.
Apr 19, 2008 - 1:30 pm Mary Jackson:The most distressing double standard is that if both male and female are drunk to the point of not being in control and/or unable to recall clearly what happened (or how), feminists demand that the female’s version be believed. Why? How is this justified?
It isn’t. All that is “demanded” is that the female’s version be heard.
Judging from your educational background, you are an intelligent young woman. You may therefore be interested to read my New English Review article here, in which I explore the difficulties surrounding rape and the law. If you think it’s going to be some kind of feminist manifesto, you will be very, very surprised. It will make you think.
In fact my concern in my article here was not with the law, or even with interpretations of rape, but with MacDonald’s reflexive double standard. No commenter so far has successfully refuted my claim that MacDonald has a double standard. Many think she is right to have one.
Nik, as an intelligent “Ivy grad”, do you really deem it acceptable to be judged on your sexual past, when an intelligent twenty-four-year-old male “Ivy grad” is not so judged?
Before you answer, please read my article.
Apr 19, 2008 - 3:01 pm CoolCzech:FP:
Some of the arguments made by people are just goofy –and counter productive. (Eg cool czech olde tyme protectionism; it is a root of feminism’s success.)
- As opposed to the New Time protectionism (eg, Rape Crisis Clnics, Little Blue Books, and chiding boys for their supposed sexism)?
Please.
Apr 20, 2008 - 11:38 am alison:Great article Mary
Apr 20, 2008 - 4:22 pm Mac:Sorry, Mary. I’ve reread both articles and all the comments on this thread. Heather MacDonald wins this one hands down. You and your supporters lose, and do so rather badly.
Thanks for playing though, and I wish you better luck next time you enter the intellectual arena. I recommend that, if you wish to avoid further embarrassment, you avoid going up against opponents like MacDonald in the future. To be blunt, her capacities for logical thinking and clear, concise exposition are orders of magnitude better than yours are.
Apr 20, 2008 - 9:08 pm mylai:George,
George: “So.. if they are both drunk, which one gets a life destroying felony charge?”
If they are both drunk and both ok with it, then no one is at fault. I would think that in order to it be rape, the girl should have to have resisted or said “stop” at some point during sex and it was ignore.
George: “And what if he is drunk and she is relatively sober?”
Again, if at any point the male tried to push the girl off him penis or yelled “stop” and she didn’t, then the court should afford him the same ability to claim rape. Since I’m not a man, I really don’t know, that being so turned off by unwanted heterosexual sex, if a man couldn’t just lose his erection and the entire process just stop.
George: “I am looking forward (not really) to the case where some bimbo gets slobbering drunk, wakes the next morning with a pounding headache, can’t remember who or how many people she banged the night before, can’t find her dress, let alone her panties, stumbles out of her front door into the grip of the police while TV cameras roll, is accused of multiple counts of felony sexual assault and goes to prison for twelve years.”
So tell me, why the use of the word “bimbo?” What is your definition of bimbo? That is exactly what this article is about. What exactly would you call a male version of bimbo?
There was a 1988 film called “The Accused” based on a actual case involving the gang-rape of a drunk “bimbo.” Due to the girl’s drunk and flirtatious behavor in the bar as well as her less than good girl past, the rapists (at first) get a reduced sentence of reckless endangerment. http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie.aspx?m=86949&pkw=PI&vendor=Paid+Inclusion&OCID=iSEMPI&mp=syn
I can only imagine that cases such as the one this film was based on, changed some of our rape laws and conviction rates due in part to the outrageous double standard with regard to using a woman’s sex life against her in her claim of rape.
Apr 21, 2008 - 1:53 am Mary Jackson:Mac - in other words you agree with her and share her double standard. There are lots of you around, sadly.
Apr 21, 2008 - 2:25 am RAH:Mary,
I did not read McDonald’s article, only yours. In the last 30 years the issue of date rape has been made a larger feminist issue as espoused by commenter mylai. In order to increase funding for women’s causes the issue of date rape has been mythically increased by claiming that rape only occurs to the female when she is drunk and has not forcefully repulsed the male. The fact is that many young men have been accused and had the lives ruined by females that failed to use restraint and got drunk and allowed themselves to have sex. You have indicated that most women do not charge rape when they have had bad or drunken sex. Despite what you state, that does not change that many feminist groups do use the inflated numbers of date rape to get time, money and attention to their causes.
You seem to be upset at the standard that man are not called lechers when they are promiscuous. Women are called sluts or tramps when they are promiscuous. The fact is that man and women view sex differently. Young men think about sex all the time. Women tend to think about romance and not just lustful sexual thoughts. Women throughout history had control over society and over men’s behavior and acceptance in society. Women have really been the civilizing force over men. The methods have usually been over control over sex. Restraints of sexual favors by women are used to make men do certain things that women want. Withholding sex by women the men are often forced into offering marriage with legal agreements that make sure the women is protected from loss, due to her having children and getting older. Those protections are child support and alimony.
When women fail to use restraint by allowing themselves to have sex without forethought or agreements as to fidelity, then women generally feel diminished or cheap. That is their own self-inflicted opinion of themselves. Men rarely feel bad about sex, however it comes to them. You seem to be upset that women and men feel differently about sex.
So why the concern that the men who are promiscuous are not called lechers? Well if women refused to have sex with these men then maybe the social opprobrium would work and men would restrain themselves. Why should a male who wants sex anyway he can get it feel bad if women foolishly allows themselves to give sex because they decided to get wasted?
The rape issue is really one sided. Men rarely accuse a woman of rape, they would feel ashamed if they made that accusation especially among their peers. Women who are really raped should not feel ashamed but angry. But that is not the reality,because rape is not only an assault but a humiliation and women feel they are degraded and been made dirty due to a real rape. The fact is that when women allow drunken sex they may feel stupid but not humiliated and ashamed. They chose to allow the act but was not forced against their will.
Women have all the control in normal sexual encounters they can deny or agree. If they want to be not called tramps then that is within their control.
Apr 21, 2008 - 3:35 pm Mary Jackson:Women have all the control in normal sexual encounters they can deny or agree. If they want to be not called tramps then that is within their control.
QED. Nice girls don’t get raped.
Why should a male who wants sex anyway he can get it feel bad if women foolishly allows themselves to give sex because they decided to get wasted?
This comment is typical for this thread.
Naively, when I wrote this article, I thought that opposition to the double standard - to unfairness - could be assumed. It is only fair that human beings be judged equally for the same conduct. I expected to be challenged on the grounds that MacDonald was not in favour of the double standard. Nobody has challenged me on this.
All the opposition to my original article has been based on the premise that it is acceptable for men to be promiscuous but not for women. I am disgusted by this. Equality before the law, and, following from that, a single standard of morality, is a cornerstone of Western civilisation. Otherwise we are no better than the Muslims.
To those few posters here who believe that human beings should be judged as human beings - thanks for your support.
QED. I was right. But I wish I’d been wrong.
Apr 21, 2008 - 5:07 pm mylai:“Women have all the control in normal sexual encounters they can deny or agree. If they want to be not called tramps then that is within their control.”
So then it is your absolute right to call a girl a tramp, bimbo, whore, etc., if she exercises her sexuality? How old and tired. Yes, we DO have control over when and with whom we choose to have sex. Or if we rather not have it at all. Sadly there are some girls who don’t quite see the ignorance and envy behind the callers of such words. I’ve always suspected men and some nasty women will always try to control what they cannot have, through either force or name calling. Sad.
I am gratefull that the American Justice system has the laws to protect women that exists today that didn’t exist yesterday. In that way it DOES even the playing field. “Nice” girls and bad girls both, get raped. As we’ve all read in any number of cases, the girl in the burqa is raped just as easily and frequently as the girl dressed in less. So basically this name-called holds little substance. No longer can a woman’s sexual promiscuity be a defence of the rapist, because the law sees that a woman truly does have the same right of sexual pleasure as do men. As long as the courts have caught up and have a clue, I frankly couldn’t give a damn whether an idiot with a limited vocabulary and a double standard doesn’t.
“Why should a male who wants sex anyway he can get it feel bad if women foolishly allows themselves to give sex because they decided to get wasted?”
No, he shouldn’t feel bad. Not if the sex was consentual. He should feel fright, however, if it wasn’t. Since the courts know full well and readily acknowledge “males wants sex anyway he can get it,” it’ll remain the woman’s words against his in the majority of date rape case.
Apr 21, 2008 - 10:29 pm Keldin:As a man with three daughters, I am very concerned about the possibility they might get raped at some point in the future. That said, I think the fact that a double standard exists against men should also be brought up. Women’s lives are rarely ruined by false accusations of rape. Men’s are. I would say that BOTH double standards need to come down.
And for the record, I come from a religious culture that tells people of both genders to control their behaviour, not just the females.
Apr 22, 2008 - 11:42 am Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg:Mary Jackson’s belly button: stop staring at me.
Apr 24, 2008 - 8:38 am Bozoer Rebbe:Mary Jackson:
Dear, oh dear. You men have no sense of humour. Must be the hormones.
Do you laugh at cartoons of women with sagging breasts? Are hysterectomies funny?
You attempted to make a joke about men and small penises and then deliberately used the word “cut”, most likely because you think men have castration complexes and you wanted to dig the knife in deper.
It would be nice if you misandrists would get some new material. When pressed, many anti-male women resort to calling men “little boys” or make fun of their penis.
Does your obsession with size mean that you require a particularly large penis to be satisfied? Over 90% of men have penises that are less than 8″ long and self-reporting surveys show that most women find 6 to 6.5 inches “ideal”. If a “small” penis isn’t enough for you, you’re the one with the problem.
Oh, and Mary, when was the last time you had consensual sex with a man?
Jun 30, 2008 - 11:41 am Tristan Phillips:Such a hateful little woman. After reading your sexist, bigotted comments here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ask-dr-helen-can-a-man-be-raped-by-a-woman/2/
You’re either a drive-by troll or a vindictive man-hating woman. Too bad people pay to listen to your bile.
Jul 1, 2008 - 4:13 pm