Agree Alcohol Is Main Factor in Sex Assault? You're a 'Rape Apologist,' Says Salon


Spring break
Public domain

How concerned should college women be about the date rape drug and drug-assisted sexual assault? The American Enterprise Institute's Caroline Kitchens argues persuasively that the answer is not very. In a recent video for AEI's "Factual Feminist," Kitchens explains:

In 2005, forensic scientists in the United Kingdom tested blood and urine for various drugs in more than 1,000 cases where drug-facilitated sexual assault was suspected. The scientists found that alcohol was the most commonly used substance, and it was usually consumed voluntarily. Only 21 of the cases—about 2%– could be classified as potential drug-facilitated sexual assault cases. But even in these cases, the researchers warned that they couldn't determine whether or not the drugs were taken voluntarily. Numerous other studies from around the world have come to the same conclusion.

The evidence provided by Kitchens is so strong that even Salon's Jenny Kutner accepted the argument:

Research has shown that women do overestimate their vulnerability to date-rape drugs, likely because it's an easy quasi-myth for a culture squeamish about female sexual agency to perpetuate.

I know what you're thinking: Robby, that's impossible. Salon would never miss an opportunity to criticize a non-liberal opinion in unfair and insulting terms. Don't worry—the world is not coming to an end. After noting that Kitchens is correct about date rape drugs being a trivial concern in the campus sexual assault debate, Kutner nevertheless accuses her of "rape apologia":

While [Kitchens] acknowledges that sexual assaults still occur even without the help of date-rape drugs, Kitchens essentially blames these assaults on the victims' intoxication — not, you know, on the perpetrators. "Most commonly, victims of drug-facilitated sexual assault are severely intoxicated, often from their own volition," she says. "Paranoia over the date rape drug causes us to misplace our anxieties. And feminists should be concerned that women are modifying their behavior on their girls' nights out in order to protect themselves from some vague unprobable [sic] threat."

Kitchens essentially does nothing of the sort. At all. She merely takes note of the indisputable fact that heavy alcohol use is the common denominator in rape cases and that women are not typically coerced into drinking alcohol.

Of course rapists are ultimately responsible for rape. Kitchens never implied otherwise. It's not even possible to imply otherwise; it's tautological. Yes, rapists are the ones raping. The evidence, however, suggests that rapists do not force drugs on unsuspecting victims. Instead, it seems to me, rapists prey on victims who become blackout drunk of their own accord. Women who think they must vigorously guard their drinks at all times have misplaced fears—the drink itself is the actual date rape drug, if consumed excessively.

Since excessive drinking—and by excessive, I mean rapid, incapacitating, blackout drinking—is the big factor in sexual assault, if we want to reduce sexual assault, we should try to come up with policies that might curb excessive drinking. In a recent article, I explained why lowering the drinking age might have that effect.

To be clear: I'm not positive that strategy would work, and as Harvard University's Jeffrey Miron told me, there is no evidence that it would, even though it's plausible to think it might. But because I genuinely want to lower campus rape rates, I would like to be able to have a civil discussion about it.

Civil discussion will never be possible, however, as long as the Salon-types are hurling the rape apologist smear left and right, at anyone who has ever breathed a word of disagreement with far-left progressive feminism. Insulting people is just too much fun for them.

NEXT: Why Colorado's Health Department Recommended a Ban on Marijuana Edibles, Then Immediately Abandoned the Idea

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Insulting people is just too much fun for them.

    Us too!

    Stupid proglodyte morons!

  2. This whole college date rape epidemic is the same as the Audi Sudden Acceleration syndrome in the 80s.

    1. It’s a form of mass hysteria among a certain limited population that is so insanely loud that it works its way out to the rest of us.

      1. Unfortunately, it’s one of those issues that has the demagoguery built in.

        If you publicly question it, you’re making light of Rape(tm), and therefore you’re part of the problem and should be immediately dismissed.

        1. Sure, which is the same tactic the “for the children” scum employ. It’s annoying, but if you’re smart enough and confident enough you can brush their bullshit aside, because at the end of the day all they can do is scream irrational stupidity at you while you demolish their stupidity with logic. It’s the people, like Grisham, who don’t go in realizing and prepared for what kind of shitstorm they may draw on themselves that get steamrolled.

        2. This is one reason I like the fact that we’re kinda-sorta teaching my youngest the trivium, which includes rhetoric and logic. God knows those skills are lacking in most people these days.

          1. Logic is very important, but what’s also important is not being a sucker for peer pressure and public shaming. Their only tactic is to try and smear anyone who doesn’t toe the line and to embarrass them to the collective. If you don’t give a fuck about that, or, like me, get about 1000 times more stubborn and pissed off if you try to pull that shit with me, their pussy little tactic fails miserably. The reason they use it is because they are weak-willed popularity contest junkies with no integrity or spine, they know it works on them, so they think it will work on you.

            1. The problem, too, is that it can hit you in the pocketbook. That’s why so many public figures feel compelled to retreat on these kinds of issues.

              Better to make a stand and stop the nonsense, because it’s never going to stop, otherwise.

            2. Their only tactic is to try and smear anyone who doesn’t toe the line and to embarrass them to the collective.

              Well, yes, until they get hold of the judiciary or (as in this case) an extra-legal means of meting out punishment. Which is, of course, the directive by which progressivism persists: grab hold of any form of control, any bureaucratic or procedural handle on others, and use it to ratchet up their power. Today it’s circumventing due process for alleged offenders, tomorrow it’s enforcing hate speech codes for expressing your dissent.

              1. I am new to Reason, and I just wanted to say how nice it is to finally see some others who have awareness of the tactics being employed, and some genuine disdain and conviction against its dishonesty.

                This is like a refreshing stream of water, after wandering the desert for a couple years.

            3. spot on

          2. +1000

            I read a book about the Trivium, and it’s been the most amazing leap of mental capability that I’ve ever made in my life.

        3. Before I retired from the Navy last year we were dealing with the “Rape Epidemic” in the military. A few of us made the suggestion that the increase in rapes is not new but that people were more comfortable in coming forward especially males(a large part of the increase) then they were before and that it was a good thing people were reporting. We were immeadiately shouted down as you said. When we had a discussion group sit down one sailor suggested that the increased roles for women in the military may be a cause for the increase. He had a complaint filed against him for sexism and he was councelled. Now he didn’t say that women didn’t belong in increased combat roles he was mearly offering a possible reason for the increase. If the military and society in general is affraid to ask serious questions they will never get serious answers and the problem will remain unsolved.

            1. Well there are rapes in the military. Many of the older generation like me believed the increase was due to reporting and the comfort people were having now in doing so. The military has taken great steps since I joined in 94. Even males are feeling comfortable reporting. But like I said suggest that and you get slapped down.

    2. It’s so obviously bullshit. I have a daughter in college and would willingly nuke anyone who sexually assaulted her, but I don’t believe for a second that things are one jot worse or better than they were when I was in school. Obviously, she should view all college age males as predators, but that’s not anything new. Same goes for my boys in how they should view girls of the same age.

      1. I have a daughter in college

        Go on…

        1. HM!….You should’ve gone with, “Pics, or it didn’t happen!”.

          1. Don’t worry, I live in ProL’s basement for part of the year and take plenty of pictures of the family when they’re asleep. Especially his daughters. I can email them to you if you want, or visit my Instagram page:

            1. Someday, when your illegitimate daughters reveal themselves to you, I’ll have my revenge.

              1. I don’t want them to reveal themselves to me! What if I’ve had sex with them?!?

                1. That’s why you’d better be nice to me.

                2. Just like that movie with josh brolin and samuel l jackson?

            2. Eh….I better not. The threat of nuclear wessels weapons is a bit of a buzzkill.

        2. Did I mention the nuclear weapons?

          1. As faculty, clearly my interest is in loco parentis.

            Shame on you.

            1. [Raises daughter threat level to DEFCON 3.]

              1. You know what else is at DEFCON 3?

      2. Same goes for my boys in how they should view girls of the same age.

        “Protect your wallet, son…”

        1. The threats may differ, but the enemy-combatant status remains. The threat is lower post-college. In no event should any legally binding conduct or commitment be entered into at this time.

          1. I hope you teach your sons well. I was missing the lobe of my brain that taught me to avoid the crazy.

            As such, all of my relationships with females are strictly platonic, which could explain the high percentage of lesbians that make up my female friends.

            1. I was a fucking moron at that age. If I get a time machine, I’ll go kick my 19 year-old ass.

              1. When it came to women, I was a fucking moron until I was in my thirties. So I win.

                1. I got much better by then, so okay.


                2. When it came to women, I was a fucking moron until…

                  Oh who am I kidding, I’m still fucking a moron when it comes to women.

              2. This is the reason I would consider inventing a time machine.

                *kick* listen boy *kick* when the hot chick pus her hand on your knee while “studying” its a signal to make a move. *kick* *kick* *kick*. Dont fuck it upbnext week. *kick*

                1. They had women at Tech? Huh. Learn something new every day.

                  Of course, I must ruin the joke by revealing that I once dated an engineer from Georgia Tech. Industrial, though, so that doesn’t count.

                  1. It’s called imaginary engineering for a reason.

                    Who all here went to Tech?

              3. Can I borrow that when you’re done with it? I have an ass to go put some boot to, myself.

      3. I have a daughter in college and would willingly nuke anyone who sexually assaulted her, but I don’t believe for a second that things are one jot worse or better than they were when I was in school.

        This is my favorite aspect of the hysterical left-wing claim that conservatives and libertarians are being ‘rape apologists.’ Do they imagine that there are no women outside the Democratic Party? Do they imagine that no conservative or libertarian men have daughters?

        Apparently progressives think you want your own daughter to be raped and would make excuses for her rapist. Also, women like Christina Hoff Sommers clearly want women to be sexually assaulted, according to progthink. That’s how fucking crazy they are.

        1. Like I said below, they have no other tactic because they are not rational. They go to 11 on the crazy because they have nothing else. They are irrational and they encourage each other to be off-the-charts irrational, which is why they have gotten so much worse over recent years. Rationality is not an admirable quality to them. It is not something to strive for. They practically worship irrationality and pure emotion.

        2. No no no. Conservative and libertarian men don’t want their daughters to be raped, but if they are, then its time for a honor killin.

        3. aww, rapists get a bad rap!

          /said no conservative or libertarian ever

          1. I’m willing to bet even rapists are unlikely to be “rape apologists”. If they didn’t think it was wrong, wouldn’t they just rape people willy-nilly on the street in broad daylight?

            1. There’s a difference between thinking something is wrong and not wanting to get caught doing it.

              1. Offer to rape a rapist’s momma and see where that gets you. I’m willing to bet all but the most deranged ones would take exception.

          2. Er, date rape was in fact a topic of jokes among males when I was growing up. And getting a girl drunk enough to do something she wouldn’t otherwise was not looked down upon until recently. I mean look at Superbad.

            1. Deliberately getting a girl drunk enough to do something she wouldn’t otherwise do is kind of scummy, but I wouldn’t put it at the same level as “rapist”.

              1. You wouldn’t, but under many penal codes ( huh huh huh…) and in the eyes of feminists, having sex with an intoxicated (note, not merely impaired, a lower standard but that many feminists would agree with) woman (because rape is about POWER and therefore men rape women but not the other way around- feminists not penal codes) woman is rape

                Intoxicated= unable to consent

                Sex w/o consent = rape

                Note, sex w/o rape =/= sex AGAINST consent

                This is why in many states, spouses can have sex with an intoxicated spouse and it is not rape, because consent is ‘assumed’

                This is not the case w/boyfriend/gf etc.

                In some states, if married, it is only rape AGAINST not merely w/o IF they are married

                Note they for many feminists if you were verbally or in any way ‘pressured’ eg ‘please!!!!’ Or even if you later regret it = rape

                1. Hey, when are you going to post under your old handle to prove you’re not a lying shitstain?

                  Prove you are Dunphy.

              2. Deliberately getting a girl drunk enough to do something she wouldn’t otherwise do is kind of scummy, but I wouldn’t put it at the same level as “rapist”.

                You’re arranging things so you can have sex with someone who wouldn’t ordinarily consent to it. How is that not rape?

                1. Okay, let’s start with this “getting a girl drunk” thing. How does this work? Is it sort of like force feeding guys in Guantanamo?

              3. Also, most of these cases are the guy and the girl getting themselves drunk enough to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do.

                1. If that’s the case then their sober selves are consenting and there’s no problem.

                  The problem is when a non-consenting sober woman (or man) is gotten drunk to effect pseudo-consent.

        4. “That’s how fucking crazy they are.”

          Most of these freaks have personal blogs. They can’t not talk about themselves. In all of them they admit to being some form of crazy/emotionally disturbed.

          Yep. They are crazy.

    3. I don’t think that exactly fits. My impression is that a lot of people at the time actually believed the Audi Sudden Acceleration syndrome was real. I don’t think even the loudest claimants of the “college rape epidemic” particularly believe this bullshit. They’re just hoping no one will be so gauche as to point out that it’s bullshit. This is more about a group of progressives trying to bully their way into power.

      1. Not true. I dated a girl back in my college age who absolutely, positively felt that if a girl and guy were drunk and had sex that the guy was a rapist. We had a long, civil discussion about this and ended the evening with some great sex. On the one hand, I have to commend her for not letting her feelings about the subject result in the type of “You are a disgusting apologist” invective you see online. On the other hand, she could never articulate any sort of logical foundation of why she felt that men must always be at fault if the woman was too drunk to give consent.

        On hindsight, I believe that the same impulse leading a smart girl like herself to hold men to a higher standard regarding sex is the same impulse that leads liberals like her to hold the rich and corporations to a higher standard when talking about entering into a contract. SHAME on that company for selling sugary drinks to a willing consumer! They see people in positions of higher social status and expect them to assume the responsibility for themselves and the “more vulnerable”. That this perpetuates exactly the cycle of class entrenchment they claim to despise never really enters into their heads.

  3. Insulting people is just too much fun for them.

    It’s not fun for them; they literally have no other reaction in their toolkit. They aren’t intelligent or rational enough for civil discourse. They are far too stupid to understand their own emotional “attack the blasphemer!” knee-jerk response. They just have no other way to respond. It’s why they escalate things vastly out of proportion; because they do not have anything resembling a proportional response. To anything. They’re basically children, throwing a tantrum if you don’t agree with them 100%, no matter how moronic, anti-human nature, or insane their “solutions” are.

    1. It’s like the Romantic Era on steroids. Rationality? No, thanks.

      1. “The Romantic Era on steroids” describes postmodernism/antipositivism so nicely.

        I’m stealing it.

        1. I’m holding out hope for a Re-Enlightenment.

        2. “What I Like About You” – anthem of the Romantics Era

          1. You’re supposed to link to the YouTube video. It’s like you don’t even know how to play HitandRun. Geez!

    2. This is the same thing with #gamergate.

      If you disagree with feminists whining about “male privilege” in an industry that caters to primarily young males, you are labeled a misogynistic woman hater who supports death threats.

      Makes sense.

    3. I’ve known a lot of people who were very intelligent and rational in other areas, who nonetheless spout nonsensical left-wing rhetoric on any political topic that comes up. It’s just a matter of self-discipline.

      For example, every chemist probably lazily wrote down reactions where the products didn’t equal the reactants when he or she first started as a chemistry student. After being smacked down by their teachers, and having no support group to back them up and attack the teachers for smacking them down, they internalized that you have to think rationally about chemical reactions.

      But in politics that doesn’t happen. Even if you get smacked down by a person from the other side for making a stupid argument or invalid claim, you’ve got a gigantic support group (your “team”) that will back you up anyway out of tribalism. Well, as long as you’re a leftist (or to a lesser extent, a rightist). So you never learn to be rational and self-disciplined about political thought. And that’s why the left has gotten so nutty now — in the net.roots era, they can spend their lives never confronting someone who opposes their viewpoint.

      1. And that’s why the left has gotten so nutty now — in the net.roots era, they can spend their lives never confronting someone who opposes their viewpoint.

        I will not hear you speak ill of netroots! It’s the funniest gathering on planet Earth.

        “Comedy creates oneness and that is what our side wants,” according to Julianna Forlano, host of a news parody without laughter cues called “Absurdity Today.” She noted how her stand-up performance even created “oneness” at a Pennsylvania Elks Lodge, despite the crowd being filled with racist men (she could tell they were racist from the animal heads displayed on the walls).

        Katie Halper agreed with her fellow white comic that racism is endemic in their industry. “When the right says we have no sense of humor, it’s a great way for racist/sexist/homophobic men to make themselves seem funny.” Halper is a founding principal of Qualified Laughter, a production company “dedicated to comedic social justice media.”

        Come on. That’s hilarious. Not on purpose, but still.

        1. Nuke it from orbit.

        2. “Available for birthday parties and bar mitzvahs.”

        3. “When the right says we have no sense of humor, we go out and prove them right.”

          1. How many shrill harpies could possibly been in one place? Also how many cats do you think they have combined?

  4. this just in: Seattle Times going apeshit with curiously written headlines.

    Kids face lead risk as shooting sports grow


    Three part series, submit for Pulizer.

  5. Women should never take any responsibility for their own safety. Because nothing says ’empowered feminist’ like getting so drunk you are no longer capable of controlling your actions and then entrusting your safety to the men around you.

    I mean, you can’t expect a woman to engage in self-control.

    I also love this aspect of the argument: They always assume that when people say women should be careful about how much they drink that we’re being sexists because no one would say that to a man. Except that people do say that to men, which is why my parents told me before I went to college that getting too drunk could be a threat to my safety.

    That’s because my parents realized I was an adult, acknowledged that I was going to drink in college, but wanted me to be aware of the risks so I wouldn’t place myself in danger. For example, my dad mentioned that the vast majority of crimes are committed while either the victim or the perpetrator are drunk and that you should try to avoid such dangerous situations by keeping your wits about you.

    Progressives are basically arguing that women are too childlike to be aware of risks and to plan accordingly.

    1. That’s pretty much their argument about everything. You’re too stupid to handle your own retirement, you need Social Security. You’re to stupid to decide you want a payday loan, that’s why it should be outlawed. You’re too stupid to defend yourself with a gun, they should be banned. And so on.

      It’s an example of the endemic projection of progressives. They are too stupid to even think rationally, and they project that on the rest of us about everything.

      1. My favorite is the ‘teach men not to rape’ argument since they are literally saying that women should take no steps to defend themselves and should just pray that the men around them aren’t rapists.

        That is literally the opposite of feminism. That’s such a sexist argument that it actually offends me. And I hang out here. There should be nothing left which offends me.

        1. Remember. Everything progressives say they are? They are actually the exact opposite. They say they’re feminists, yet their actions are the exact opposite. They say they want to help the poor, yet their actions are the exact opposite. It’s insane. And it applies to everything they do.

        2. ‘teach men not to rape’

          Rapists in prison are always going around saying, “if only my teachers had taught me how *not* to rape, I’d never gotten into this mess!”

      2. Fuck, Khan was right: “Nothing ever changes, except man. Your technical accomplishments? Improve a mechanical device and you may double productivity, but improve man and you gain a thousandfold. I am such a man.”

        Instead of reducing man to the lowest common denominator for easy subjugation, how about we try–in the non-central command and control/eugenics sense–to improve the species? You know, by freeing ourselves and expecting and demanding the best, rather than the worst?

        1. Well that might not be fair, ProL. And as we all know, in the minds of five-year-olds, fairness is all that matters, and nothing else.

          1. If life was meant to be fair, why did God make Kryptonians? Huh?

          2. “…in the minds of five-year-olds, fairness is all that matters,…”

            And fairness means they win.

        2. Careful, I think Khan would fit right in to the modern Left.

        3. Khan as in Genghis? or Khan from Star Trek into the darkness?

          1. There is only one Khan and only one Matrix movie.

            1. Reloaded was not that bad.

              1. Did you write it or something?

          2. Neither. Khandhi, a Sikh-Mexican eugenics hybrid, merging two cuisines into one political philosophy.

    2. They always assume that when people say women should be careful about how much they drink that we’re being sexists because no one would say that to a man.

      The issue turns on the desire to say that women should have or take no agency in their own protection. That if society were constructed correctly, that they should be able to drink and drug with reckless abandon and still feel safe.

      It’s really no different than me not locking my doors when I leave the house, then getting pissed at society when all my shit gets stolen.

      Did I deserve to get robbed? No. No more than a woman deserves to get raped. That’s not what’s at issue.

      The issue is we take a certain amount of agency in our own protection and safety. We lock our doors, our cars, and do various things to make it harder for criminals to break in or walk in and steal our stuff.

    3. Their arguement also dismisses the fact that men are victims of rape. Some even say as likely as women to be victims.

  6. I always had one rule,never have sex with a drunk chick.When I was that age I saw some gals ready to do thinks they most likely not do sober.Hell I carried one out of a bar and took her home,She had 3 beers,not much of a drinker.I knew her and her family,Fought me all the way to the truck.Was thanked the next day.Damn,she was hot too

    1. None of our kids would have been born if my wife and I didn’t have drunk sex.

      I suppose that’s different, huh…

      1. I bet there are many alive today due to demon rum

  7. Implied Oral Consent is a good band name.

    1. I came up with “Fantasy Love” as a good pr0n name Sunday.

      #1 Son and I were watching foosball – he plays teh fantasy – I don’t. He said he was looking for some “fantasy love” during the Giants game.

      My brain immediately went to “pr0n name”.

      “Rape Apologist” would be a good punk band name.

      1. I believe Date Rape is already taken.

    2. Burp Means Yes

  8. Eh – fuck ’em.

  9. Salon censored my account. That’s how progressive they are.

    1. Proof that God loves you and wants you to be happy…

  10. “Kitchens essentially blames these assaults on the victims’ intoxication ? not, you know, on the perpetrators”

    When did it become editorially OK to write teenage colloquialisms into an argument? Because, like, uhm, unprofessional much?

    1. It’s called the Gawkerfication of left-wing media. All left wing media is now composed of people so fucking stupid they cannot write in any way except in this babyish, dimwitted, infantile language that sounds like it’s coming from a Valleygirl.

      Look at Jezebel’s comments some time. Here’s one someone posted earlier:

      I love how completely he seduces her in under a minute. Like, “Mike, buddy, I could fuck your girlfriend if I wanted to. I could fuck all the girlfriends.”

      This reads like the unedited internal monologue of a 13 year old.

      1. We could use some Mencken or Clemens right about now.

        1. The last good left-wing writer was Christopher Hitchens.

          Some people seem to think that Matt Taibbi is a good writer, but those people are wrong.

          Also, and this may not be a common opinion, but I think a living political writer people actually will remember is Mark Steyn. That article on free speech is probably the best article on the subject I’ve read in years.

          Oh, don’t worry. There’ll still be plenty of ‘offending, insulting or humiliating’ in such a world, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Mozilla CEO and Zionists and climate deniers and feminist ‘cis-women’ not quite au courant with transphobia can all tell you. And then comes the final, eerie silence. Young Erin Ching at Swarthmore College has grasped the essential idea: it is not merely that, as the Big Climate enforcers say, ‘the science is settled’, but so is everything else, from abortion to gay marriage. So what’s to talk about? Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation, ‘gender fluidity’ and everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.

          He’s also a bit of a troll who enjoys conflict, which makes him similar in that regard to Hitchens, Mencken and Twain.

        2. What are you ? Some kind of reprobate ?

      2. The thing is that progressives and their ilk have actually become the incredibly anti-intellectual movement they accuse the right of being (Projection again? That’s un-possible!), though the right does it in its own ways too. But progs have embraced stupidity, irrationality, and pure emotion as the core of their beings. They actually, actively attack and purge rationality and integrity and reason from their midst. It isn’t welcome. It’s mansplaining, or whatever else they want to call it. They actively reject the primary things that make humans intelligent. Think about that.

        1. I was at a wedding this weekend. My friend’s brother actually covered his ears and made humming noises when a Paul Ryan commercial came on.

          How much of an anti-intellectual fucking dimwit do you have to be that a campaign commercial for someone you disagree with throws you into that kind of infantile hysterics? It’s embarrassing and a wonderful example of how leftists view adulthood with suspicion if not active fear.

          1. Everything about their groupthink is centered around rewarding irrationality and infantile behavior. They backslap each other for being completely illogical while viciously attacking anyone who tries to stand up for reason or intellectual honesty. And it’s been going on for years, and we are really seeing the results of it. They’re a movement of squalling, tantrum-throwing infants who have purged every speck of any kind of push towards being intelligent, reasoned, and having integrity.

            This is what happens when you decide to court morons for your movement. For a while they’re pliant idiotic sheep. But eventually they become an impossible to control mob.

            1. This entire conversation is making me remember all sorts of progressive cliches and idiocies that drive me up the wall.

              Like when they don’t want to debate something, generally due to a lack of research on their part or an obvious intellectual deficit, and decide to unilaterally proclaim that ‘this issue is too important for debate.’

              Cathy Young wrote about this recently:

              Likewise, when Scripps College decided to cancel a talk by Will, its president Lori Bettison-Varga noted that “sexual assault is ? too important to be trivialized in a political debate.” In other words, debating the definition of sexual assault or the statistics on its prevalence is beyond the pale of acceptable speech.

              They always assume that whatever dipshit, unsupportable position they currently hold is not a political position, but is so self-evidently correct that it would be wrong, if not actively immoral, to allow any debate on the subject.

              The progressive left is a fascist totalitarian movement. They despise free speech and would gladly eliminate any liberty for momentary expedience.

              1. They are a fascist totalitarian movement, but they are also an infantile one. In some ways that makes them less dangerous (because they are so fucking stupid), but in some ways it makes them more dangerous (because they are so fucking irrational).

                Liberty literally means nothing to them. Not even their own. Which is why they are so disdainful of people for whom it does mean something (or everything). They gladly support policies and positions that reduce their own liberty as long as it does the same to people they hate. Once again, we are back at the “cut off your nose to spite your face” aspect of progressives. They will literally sacrifice themselves to hurt those they hate. That’s demented.

            2. All true, and it’s why they’ll fail.

          2. Progressives: They Grow Old, But They Never Manage to Grow Up

          3. Yes why can’t he show as much tolerance for his political opponents as you obviously do?

            1. Case in point of infantile tactics…

    2. Boom, that’s it. If I get robbed, and the when the police come by the house and they find that there was no forced entry because I leave my doors unlocked, do I chastise the cops and accuse them of blaming the victim when they suggest I lock my doors when I leave? No, I START LOCKING MY FUCKING DOORS.

      1. Fuck you, Paul. You should start an online petition to teach robbers not to rob and then angrily proclaim that anyone who tells you this is stupid is nothing but a burglar apologist.

        1. I thought Paul was a turd-burglar apologist. Or is that me?

          1. Turd.Burglar.

        2. Fuck you Irish the world is Paul’s insurance policy. He shouldn’t have to start anything, if he takes any action the burglars have one. It’s up to us to teach the burglar to not burglar.

          1. It’s up to us to teach the burglar to not burgle.

            Does spending the past 30 years teaching people to shoot count?

      2. Women shouldn’t have to lock the doors to their hearts. Men should just know when women want them to come in without being told. And a man who doesn’t make an advance when one is desired is an insensitive, stupid, self-absorbed prick, or possibly gay.

  11. ” Kitchens essentially does nothing of the sort. At all. She merely takes note of the indisputable fact that heavy alcohol use is the common denominator in rape cases and that women are not typically coerced into drinking alcohol.”

    Look Robby, its an indisputable fact that reality is sexist,and acknowledging sexist reality with your “facts” means the patriarchy wins.

  12. women do overestimate their vulnerability to date-rape drugs, likely because it’s an easy quasi-myth for a culture squeamish about female sexual agency to perpetuate.

    Did she step out of a time machine from 50 years ago before writing this?

    It’s also amusing to see someone who thinks that women cannot be expected to say “no” to a sex act they don’t want to participate in, critiquing others’ attitudes toward “female sexual agency”. Half of agency is the ability to refuse an act.

  13. The use of the word ‘rape’ so indiscriminately causes some problems. Russian soldiers raped women in Dresden when the Russian army overtook the city in the aftermath of WWII. They raped and raped and raped. They raped wives in front of their husbands and shot the husbands after. Many Dresden women just bent over when a Russian soldier knocked on her door. Infants were left by the side of the road. This is not a foible of Russians. This is the way human men have acted when someone really piss them off and drives them to the brink of starvation. This new definition of rape seems so darned sensitive that no one would know the real thing when it happens.

  14. The other day Warty was drunk and passed out (a redundancy, I know) on my couch. And I thought to myself, “Hey, now is my chance to be the raper instead of the rapee. But luckily for Warty’s well worn rectal sphincter, I had taken the Intro To Rape class at my local community college.

  15. Since excessive drinking?and by excessive, I mean rapid, incapacitating, blackout drinking?is the big factor in sexual assault, if we want to reduce sexual assault, we should try to come up with policies that might curb excessive drinking.

    Banning alcohol on college campuses? Making prospective students sign a sobriety/temperance/morals agreement as a condition of enrollment?

    Since society-wide Prohibition failed the Progressives so spectacularly, maybe they should try it on a more individual basis.

    1. Wouldn’t lowering (or better yet getting rid of) the drinking age take care of the problem a wee bit better?

      1. Wouldn’t lowering (or better yet getting rid of) the drinking age take care of the problem a wee bit better?

        No, because…something, something, drunk driving…something, something, healthcare costs…something, something, domestic violence…something, something, rape hysteria…something, something, you can’t fight booze and the boss.

        1. At least the law in most places allows underage drinking and furnish meant when done by parent in the home

          I got my first wine at around 13 or 14 so it never was a big deal, even at U Can Study Buzzed (UCSB)

  16. Just think fellas, the no-shit keyboard warriors of gamergate are the champions in this fight. We need to encourage them to expand their offensive

  17. Since we’re talking about their bat-shit craziness, did this get mentioned earlier?

    1. “Their” referring to Proglodytes’.

    2. Remind me why we don’t have insane asylums anymore?

      1. I can only hope he “just came from Texas” because we were kicking his ass right out of the state.

      2. Remind me why we don’t have insane asylums anymore?

        What do you mean? There’s Congress, fifty state legislatures, hundreds of colleges…

    3. Since we are talking about their bat-shit craziness I noticed this very troubling story today;…..militants/

      The girls are from Denver, a proggie stronghold. This is the second time young girls from proggitopias have tried to join ISIS. Are the proggies teaching their children to hate America so much that they assume anyone against us must be good? Or are they teaching them to be such hardcore totalitarians that ISIS looks good?

      Either way or both ways it is double bat-shit crazy. I will say it again. Proggies know that Utopia must be established at the point of a gun. They also know that Utopia will never arrive. The pursuit of Utopia is just their pretense for using guns, which is all they really want anyway.

      1. Well, let’s see… the girls were of Sudanese and Somali descent. Were they likely to be acting under the influence of political progressives, or were they more likely to be acting under the influence of familial/cultural influences?

        Were their families living in Denver because they were attracted by the allegedly liberal bent of the politics there, or were they there because Denver is one of the most populous cities in the region, presumably relatively cosmopolitan, and one supposed with a non-trivial population of ethnic Sudanese and Somali, thus forming a more attractive destination for expats of those nationalities?

        That is, is it more likely that the correlation of Denver’s politics and these girls’ behavior represents a causal relationship, or is it more likely that there are other underlying causes that would lead individuals with ethnic backgrounds linked to Muslim African nations to both be living amongst a large urban city with liberal politics and be attracted to decidedly non-liberal Islamic extremism?

        1. I dont have enough information on this yet to make any solid judgements.

        2. The real question is how the fuck is someone named Martin Rouleau Couture joining ISIS?

          1. Syria and Algeria used to be French colonies.

      2. This has slightly better info. Two girls are Somali, one was Sudanese. They were likely Muslim to begin with and picked up some durqa-durqa-jihad from the local mosque, decided to fly over to Syria to meet cute jihadist boys to marry, and to send mom and dad a big “Fuck You!” (most important part). Undoubtedly, like the two Bosnian-Austrian girls who allegedly joined ISIS, were forcibly married/raped, impregnated, and beaten, they’ll lose their taste for durqa-durqa-jihad and want to come back to America once they realize that yes, jihad is nuts.

        The more important theme behind all of these stories is “the public cannot be trusted not to turn durqa-durqa-jihad! Trust no one! More surveillance! Fewer Rights! It’s For America!” This will eventually pave the way to even more tyranny in America in the name of protecting us from the “barbarians” outside and within the gates.

        1. Eventus magister stultorum.

  18. So there was a time when a guy could safely exit his car, leave it running with the door open, and head into the convenience store to buy a cup of coffee. But some fucker drove off with the car today. And all those thief-apologists keeping blaming the victim like it was all my fault.

    1. We still get a fair # of auto thefts this way, and yes it take Herculean restraint not to make some snide blaming the victim reference that = guaranteed complaint

      1. A complaint that will no doubt be dismissed. Because while some are frivolous, they are all treated as such.

        1. Which of course even a cursory look at actual police discipline stats (which are public record and I have several hundred since they were relevant to civil action) shows to be utter rubbish

          Fortunately, with body/dash cams etc, it’s easier to discipline the actual transgressions and exonerate the false ones, and in some cases- go after the false ones if they rise to a criminal level, a difficult burden in WA state wher case law makes even false complaints against police into a free speech issue to a large extent.

          1. Um, yeah. Sure. Like a committee consisting of retired cops and their close relatives are going to find fault in anything an ossifer does. Whatever you say.

    2. Locks keep honest people honest, but they don’t stop a thief.

      Leaving your car running is an invitation or mischief.

      I have never, and will never, leave my car running. Or unlocked for that matter. Even if there is nothing of value inside. Except in my driveway. That’s the only place I leave it unlocked. Only because I live on a busy road and know my neighbors. Though I will still lock it if it’s in my driveway with something of value in sight. To keep honest people honest.

      If someone took your car for a joyride because you left they keys in it, that’s nobody’s fault but yours. Sorry.

      1. It’s still a crime I happily arrest for, just like when somebody steals a decoy, something that libertines faking libertarianism think isn’t a real crime

        Many states do treat joyriding in the gross misdemeanor realm vs. auto theft in the frlony realm, though. Others, not so much

        1. It’s still a crime I happily arrest for

          I’m happy for you.

          something that libertines faking libertarianism think isn’t a real crime

          I don’t think it’s so much that libertarians think it’s a real crime or not, but that we’re not fans of deception. It gives an honest person the impression that the people engaging in the deception may be dishonest about other things.

          1. All warfare is based on deception – sun Tsu, and honest society is at war with crime

            We are way better off catching car thieves without the risk of vehicle pursuit and with near perfect evidence and near impossibility of innocents being convicted by using police decoys than we are just responding to stolen vehicle reports and recovering dumped stolens.

            Stolen car decoys greatly increase justice and auto thieves are so prolific that taking a few off the street can do wonders in seriously reducing crime – real crime

            1. Setting bait catches stupids. Better that people take their keys with them.

              What setting bait does to is reinforce the fact that policemen are dishonest.

              1. I dunno man. I suspect I’m generally on the same level of “distrust of cops” as you, but I can’t really see much of an issue with the police “hunting over bait” like this.

      2. If someone took your car for a joyride because you left they keys in it, that’s nobody’s fault but yours. Sorry.

        Just like it’s nobody elses fault if the drunk chick gets raped when she’s blacked out.

  19. “…Alcohol Is Main Factor in Sex Assault?”

    Alchol, a drug that lowers inhibitions in potential rapists and non-rapists, in women who may overindulge and in horny young women who might later have regrets. They needed a study to show this?

    1. Alcohol is a factor in 75% of ‘disturbance’ calls received by 911

      This is a big part of why so many salty beat cops are neutral or pro mj decrim/legalisation

      In my career, the # of wife beating, husband beating, cop assaulting, or otherwise royal Pain in the neck people influenced by alcohol = very high

      I can’t tell you how many times I have heard ”he never hits me unless he gets drunk’ or how many otherwise normal people become major fucksticks when drunk, requiring police response, ambulance, arrest, etc

      Meth is also behind a fair amount of fuckupedness that ends up being police problem


      Next to never

      Nobody calls 911 because Johnny is sitting on the couch lagging at dumb jokes and getting Cheetos dust on the carpet

      1. Still waiting for a Dunphy post.

        1. Never ceases to amaze me the extent to which people get all meta over my posts

          Get a life

          Seriously for at least the first year or two most responses to my posts had nothing to do with what I said but either fell Under the ‘ you’re obviously not a cop and you are just faking it school of poor thought or the no cop can ever be a libertarian because at some point you have to enforce the law that isn’t pure libertarian or some dumb Nazi analogy that contrary to PG ORourke wisdom equates giving somebody a ticket for smoking marijuana with putting a Jew in a boxcar

        2. And you will be waiting forever, since this is a sockpuppet.

          1. I’m not even sure I believe that you believe that any more than I believed all the ‘you can’t really be a cop’ posts were anything but reasonoid bigorati theatre

            1. Familiarity breeds contempt. You don’t breed the same contempt that the real dunphy did.

              1. Over time, even the bigorati aren’t as offended by the truth as they used to be.

                When I first countered the ‘everybody hates cops’ lies with evidence I was told to die in a fire or was met with ridiculous conjecture like all those people were too scared to tell the truth to the polltakers because of fear of cop retaliation

                However over time, a bludgeoning the idiots with the truth has clearly resulted in a grudging acceptance of some truths

                I see plenty of idiocy but not as much obviously false idiocy towards police and a lot more hedging and subjective wanks, because even idiots get tired of being blasted with caselaw and other examples that show them to be full of shit

                The last vestige of true counter factual idiocy comes from bigorati claims of racism in shooting and UOF, but even that is less ridiculous than it was

                It’s nice to see even bigoted fucktards have SOME casual relationship to the truth, when you filter their strum and dreck

                1. People who distrust cops don’t walk up to them and express their contempt. They keep it to themselves being that they don’t want to become targets. Duh.

                  1. I have more contempt for this braggart bastard.

  20. People on the left and right (or whatever other axis you choose to use in these discussions) are often talking past each other.

    On the one hand, there are things women (and men, to be fair) can do to reduce their risk exposure to sexual or other forms of abuse. In this case, moderate one’s consumption of alcohol.

    On the other hand, the ultimate culpability for someone taking advantage of a person incapacitated by alcohol is the perpetrator.

    While it’s a noble goal to reduce abuse of this form by trying to educate against and proscribe the abusive behavior, there’s no reason to not also help individuals take reasonable steps to reduce their exposure and vulnerability to these risks.

    Different people can have different opinions on what constitutes “reasonable steps” (for instance, I’d say not drinking to blackout excess is a reasonable step to advocate, but altering one’s fashion habits is not reasonable).

    1. “While it’s a noble goal to reduce abuse of this form by trying to educate…”

      Noble being the key word there. The debate is between nobility and reality. It’s “noble” to think you can guide and enlighten grown adults. But realistically, you are the only one you can control. So set rules and boundaries for yourself and don’t worry about anyone else…because you can’t do anything about them anyway.

      1. Also what falls under the definition of taking advantage of is pretty nebulous and hard to pin down

        Tons of regrettable or at least unremembered sexual couplings happen because one or both people got totally fucking intoxicated

        For most college guys, if she’s willing to fuck… They are going to fuck and if she gets wasted… Do the math

        Despite the law, I don’t think sex with a (voluntarily) intoxicated is rape, it’s just scummy, unless it’s pretty clear it would have happened anyway.

        But to a feminist, it’s RAPE no ifs ands or buts.

  21. Well if women don’t engage in behavior that greatly increases there chance of being raped how can they ever become victims? / the left and rapists everywhere

  22. While [Kitchens] acknowledges that sexual assaults still occur even without the help of date-rape drugs, Kitchens essentially blames these assaults on the victims’ intoxication ? not, you know, on the perpetrators.

    “And that guy with the chisel and hammer is insulting me in Morse code!”

  23. Civil discussion will never be possible, however, as long as the Salon-types are hurling the rape apologist smear left and right

    Little red Marxians are NOT interested in civil discussion, Mr. Soave. When the foundation of their discourse is demonizing their opponents, there is NO civil discussion possible.

    Remember one thing: these are the same kind of people that would not think twice about placing 25 million people in “re-education” camps. That is what you’re dealing with.

    1. So, Ayers and his pack of mad bombers had their own little Wannsee conference?

      How charming.


  24. How concerned should college women be about the date rape drug and drug-assisted sexual assault?

    In the near future, not at all. I’m already telling my 6 yo boy he’s going to college when hell freezes over.

  25. As part of a military college, we get “rape training” about once a month. I put that in quotations because its really more of a “if she says no, its rape. If she says yes, its rape. If you say no and it still happens, you’re still the rapist because you’re the man”. Needless to say, the 95% male population isn’t really thrilled. It doesn’t help that the lady in charge of all things sexual hates the cadets because her daughter spent her college career sleeping with us.

    1. I wonder what this woman would do if you pointed out that her position is preposterous.


  26. I’m wondering what all this is going to mean for the traditional college girls’ mating cry of “I’m so drunk!” If a girl wants to get laid now, is she going to have to come right out and say “hey, I want to get laid, and I’ve imbibed alcohol to facilitate copulation!”?


    1. Maybe we should have the equivalent of a Do Not Resuscitate order, that they sign while sober to indicate their fornicatory wishes should they become drunk.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.