UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

Lots of strawmen in one sentence there.

First, they aren't mutually exclusive. We punish drunk drivers - and rapists.

Second, we don't mandate that sober people drive more carefully, or not at all, during the witching hour. But we advise it. I'd advise my children to do so.

 

And you don't see how that could be viewed as putting the onus on the victim to prevent the crime?

 

I just want to prevent the crime.

 

We can, and should, do better than that.

 

Than what?

Women - college-aged women - should know under what circumstances they are actually likely to be raped.

 

Again, if you want to make the case that it's a huge problem, and you define a huge problem as something awful happening at least once, fine by me.

But you and I both know that activists aren't using the phrases "campus rape epidemic" and "rape culture" that way.

 

We all have some sort of responsibility to prevent ourselves from being victimized, from locking our doors when we leave the house to doing basic research about places we visit so we don't end up in the wrong part of town at the wrong time. Heck, entire closet industries exist around preventing victimization (security system companies, technology that turns on lights on timers, mail on hold so it doesn't pile up in the box). We are responsible for not leaving our laptops and wallets and luggage unattended.

Now, if someone leaves their wallet on the table when they go to the restroom then comes back to find it gone, is it victim blaming to say they put themselves at higher risk for a crime? I don't think so. The key is that someone's irresponsibility or putting themselves at higher risk for a crime does not absolve the criminal of their action in any way, and that's where there is some problem with the "well she was asking for it" logic. There is a subset of meatheads out there who argue that the punishment for the rapist/assaulter should be smaller because the victim put herself at risk, and those people are idiots of the highest degree. However, that also doesn't change the fact a victim may have put herself in a higher risk bracket to begin with.

People should be able to leave their doors unlocked without worrying about someone robbing them or wear the "wrong colors" into a bad area of town without risking gang violence or get drunk without worrying about being robbed, jumped or raped. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and it's naive to approach the problems as if we do.

 

It is simply misleading to tell young women they have as great a chance of being sexually assaulted while in their dorm studying at 1 p.m. as they do at a drunken frat party at 1 a.m. There are patterns to victimization. The Campus Sexual Assault Study found the majority of victims were freshmen and sophomores, the most common time of year to be assaulted is when school begins in the fall, the most common days were Friday and Saturday, the most common time was after midnight. People who had been previously assaulted were at far greater risk of revictimization. Alcohol was overwhelmingly an element. The United Educators study of insurance payouts for sexual assault found that “Alcohol was a significant factor in nearly all of the claims studied.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

 

Look, I'm not interested in "slut shaming" and MC is 100% right when he says that being drunk or dressing "suggestively" doesn't give anyone permission to sexually assault you.

But, the involvement of alcohol -- particularly on young girls, who might not have much experience with alcohol, or even with sex -- is a big deal. Especially on college campuses, the majority of girls who are sexually assaulted are not dragged into the bushes by someone who saw them stumbling home drunk. (Though, to be sure, there are instances of this on and around campuses every year.)

What we see is alcohol impairing judgement, and blurring the lines of consent.

Now, certainly there re guys who know better, and who know that they do not have consent. But it's not just the alcohol or the way a girl is dressed that leads to these instances.

A girl goes up to a guy's bedroom. A girl and a guy are kissing. A girl and a guy are engaging in acts of a sexual nature.

None of this means that consent has been given for any and all sexual activities. Some guys don;t take no for an answer. Some girls feel pressured to go along with activities they didn't overtly consent to, but also did not voice an opposition to.

Sometimes acts happen faster than they are prepared for, and before they know it, they are engaged in activity they did not plan on, or overtly consent to.

And, sometimes the memories of all involved are hazy.

So, remaining sober is a big deal. It goes a long way towards ensuring that you make good decisions, and that you don't place yourself in dangerous situations.

It's also why Erdely made it so clear that Jackie was not a drinker, and did not drink that night. Now, maybe she didn't. And, maybe something bad did happen to her. But, other than Jackie's word -- which doesn't mean much right now -- we have no verification that she wasn't drinking, and neither did Erdely.

Erdely wanted not only the perfect bad guys -- rich, elite, white Frat Bros -- she wanted the perfect victim too. Did she find either in Jackie's story? I'm not so sure she did.

 

A wise man once said, "The only difference between advice and blame is timing." I think that applies here.

 

So fuck it, then? Tell people to stop for gas in bad neighborhoods at 1 a.m., get black-out drunk at the shadiest bar in town, leave their doors always unlocked, etc.?

 

Ummm ... He seems to be agreeing with you.

Advice is "don't get shitfaced at frat parties." Blame is "You shouldn't have got shitfaced at a frat party."