Alcohol

Now That Jackie's Story Is False, Can We Be Honest About Rape and Alcohol?

In the wake of the Rolling Stone debacle, two experts examine the link between the drinking age, alcohol abuse, and campus violence.

|

Drunk
Dreamstime

Of all the incredible details in Rolling Stone's now-discredited story about a gang rape at the University of Virginia, there was just one that struck me as unbelievable from the start. No, it wasn't the astonishingly high number of assailants, the implication that the violence was ritualistic, or the inhumane behavior of the victim's friends.

It was actually the very first thing in the story: Jackie claimed she wasn't drunk. That detail made her story unusual, given that alcohol abuse is both the issue undergirding the campus rape crisis and the problem for which there is a more obvious solution.

And yet Sabrina Rubin Erdely ruled out the influence of alcohol in the first sentence she wrote. Jackie had taken a single sip from a spiked drink, according to Erdely, and then deliberately spilled the rest onto the floor of the Phi Kappa Psi house. The story described her as "sober but giddy"—in other words, perfectly lucid enough to remember "every moment of the next three hours of agony" while she was brutally raped by nine members of the fraternity.

Her story is a false from beginning to end (thank goodness), as recent investigations by The Washington Post, Charlottesville police, and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism have demonstrated. But even if Jackie's story were true, it wouldn't have been a particularly representative example. Despite what Erdely would have had us believe, rape cases don't typically involve a cult of secret sociopaths executing an elaborate and premeditated ritual that necessitates luring a fully conscious victim to her doom. Reality is more boring: Alcohol abuse is almost always the real culprit.

Journalists who routinely cover campus rape stories know that most disputes involve a victim who is at least partly incapacitated from alcohol or drug consumption. Rapists, in fact, are rational actors who want to commit their crimes without a struggle and ensure that they escape punishment. It's much easier to abuse someone whose state of intoxication has rendered her unable to resist, and it's much simpler to discredit subsequent accusations if the victim's memory of the attack is foggy or unreliable.

University campuses, unfortunately, have become epicenters of excessive drinking that provide no shortage of easy marks for rapists. By some accounts, binge drinking rates on American college campuses have worsened over the past decade, even as society-wide alcohol abuse has purportedly lessened.

New York Times contributor Gabrielle Glaser, author of Her Best-Kept Secret: Why Women Drink and How They Can Regain Control, told me the reason is obvious: the federally-mandated drinking age of 21 fosters a culture of reckless, illicit drinking among teens who never learned moderation.

"Young people don't have moderate models," she said in an interview with Reason. "If you're not allowed to go buy alcohol until you're 21, what are your models going to be?"

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA)—passed by an alarmist Congress in 1984—forced every state in the country to capitulate to a drinking age of 21 or lose federal highway funds. The law made criminals of teen drinkers, but it didn't sap their determination to obtain booze: it merely changed where, when, and how fast they typically get drunk. Eighteen-year-old students—legal adults, in every other sense of the word—could no longer order a few drinks at a bar or buy a bottle from the local liquor store and head home, according to Barrett Seaman, a former correspondent for Time and author of Binge: Campus Life in an Age of Disconnection and Excess.

"The 21 year-old drinking age is part of the problem," said Seaman, who is also president of Choose Responsibility, a non-profit organization opposed to the federal drinking age of 21, in an interview with Reason. "It contributes to this forbidden fruit mentality. It's the only thing that differentiates an 18-year-old from all other full citizens. And I think it's built up a resentment."

Nowadays, teens have to go looking for older students to supply them illicit alcohol. They have to beg a friend's acquaintance, or check out a sketchy house party, or ask someone at a fraternity house to get them a drink, or take a swig from a mysterious trough of blended booze—even though they're not sure exactly what's in it. They can't drink out in the open, or during the day, and they down their red solo cups as fast as possible so they don't get caught by campus cops.

The inevitable result is more teens getting drunk more rapidly and in riskier environments, according to Seaman.

"College students have no trouble at all getting a hold of alcohol," he said. "I think [the drinking age] has created this atmosphere where people when they get their hands on alcohol will drink it quickly. They pregame, a term that did not exist when I was in college and the drinking age was 18. That creates the dangerous scenario."

When the law incentivizes a culture of reckless campus drinking, more students become victims of worse things than hangovers.

Even Erdely must understand this, on some level. According to the Columbia report, Emily Renda—the UVA student and sexual assault victims' advocate who introduce Erdely to Jackie—first piqued the author's interest by asserting that "many assaults take place during parties where 'the goal is to get everyone blackout drunk.'" If there was less blackout drinking, perhaps there would be fewer assaults.

But all too often, purported anti-rape activists refuse to admit that alcohol is a significant aggravating factor in the campus rape crisis. Blaming alcohol is "politically incorrect," according to Glaser, and frequently draws harsh condemnation from certain feminists who are fixated on less practical solutions. Such outrage is dishonest and unhelpful, she says.

"It's not blaming the victim," she said. "I'm saying everybody has a role here, everybody needs to be responsible."

The best way to encourage teens to drink responsibly—and safeguard themselves against campus assaults—is for Congress to repeal NMDAA. This would allow state and local authorities to try out different alcohol policies. Right now, they are all bound to de facto Prohibition—a policy that was correctly regarded as a failure when it applied to adults, but is for some reason still considered a success at preventing teens from drinking.

"By having some sort of local experimentation, maybe we could start to turn things around," said Glaser.

Seaman is also optimistic that a lower drinking age would promote saner drinking practices, based on his personal observations. He spent time living at a dozen different campuses across the U.S. while researching his book in the early 2000s. He also took up residence at one Canadian college, McGill University. The drinking age there was 18, and the students at McGill—Canadians, Americans, Europeans, and others—were far more responsible drinkers than their U.S. counterparts, he says.

We now know that Jackie's narrative is untrue. But worst of all, it's a distraction. The problem is not that rape is ritualized and campuses are brimming with sociopaths; the problem is that teens are bad drinkers who put themselves in unsafe situations—and will continue to do so, until federal policy changes.

Edit: A previous version of this article incorrectly named the Canadian university. The mistake was mine.

NEXT: DHS Will Now Indicate When Somebody's on Their No-Fly List

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Of course we can’t be honest you sexist. Being honest would require facing reality and no one wants that. We can’t be honest and admit that women by virtue of their sex have to be more cautious and have better judgement than men. We can’t tell girls that it is a really bad idea to go get pissed drunk alone with a bunch of strange men. That is just victim blaming. Girls can after all. And girls can get drunk and pass out and put themselves in whatever vulnerable positions they like. And telling them they can’t is just saying it is okay to rape.

    1. Yep. And if you leave your car running with the keys in it in a bad part of town, it’s not your fault it got stolen. That’s victim blaming.

      1. And I didn’t read your comment before I posted. But don’t blame me, I am the victim here.

      2. Nope, it’s denial.

        1. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for young women to want to get blind stinking drunk from time to time without being raped (or murdered or mashed in an automobile accident or otherwise inconvenienced), just as it is for young men. It’s an educational experience, possibly an important one.

          1. Yes they have that right, But they can do it in a safe place. I never got blackout drunk unless I was just partying with my roommates within our apartment. When I went to parties I’d drink a little more carefully

          2. Of course you should be able to get blind drunk without being raped–in a perfect world. But I do have to ask what’s educational about getting plastered.

    2. Its like there are two fundamental elements of reality they want to deny:

      (1) Obsessing about whether the victim has any blame is irrelevant to the fact they were, you know, raped.

      (2) Being stupid increases the likelihood that you will be, what’s the word, oh yeah, raped, regardless of whether anyone thinks you bear some responsibility for the consequences of your stupidity.

      Its almost like the fact that someone has been raped is secondary to the opportunity to use that rape for political/social advantage.

      If you are using rape as a tool for social control, how are you better, morally and ethically, than the people running paramilitaries or secret police who also use rape as a tool for social control?

      1. You are not. And I don’t see how you can conclude anything other than these people want women to be raped. Why would you refuse to tell women to be more careful about drinking and being alone with strange men unless you wanted more of them to be raped?

        1. . Why would you refuse to tell women to be more careful about drinking and being alone with strange men unless you wanted more of them to be raped?

          I don’t think they want more people to be raped so much as to deny that a person has any responsibility towards what happens to her.

          For some people it’s arising out of the peculiar leftist notion that any decision where to face a consequence is one where one is not free. Thus, a person who chooses not to drink in order to reduce her vulnerability to sexual assault is being opressed by rape culture because she should be free to drink as much as she wants!

          For some people it’s arising out a feeling that telling people how to avoid being victimized necessarily shames the victim thereby further victimizing them. In their mind a person saying “don’t get drunk! It makes you vulnerable to rape!” is saying “If you drink, you deserve to be raped!” And this isn’t necessarily baseless; everyone of us as children knew of other kids who had parents who instead of nurturing them, treated them like crap. I know of one teenager who had a motorcycling accident, and his mother slapped him when he came home bleeding for “doing this to me!”

          In the end though, both of these approaches are neurotic. Life is full of dangers, and to survive, we must act in certain ways. A person who eats to avoid starving isn’t unfree; they forego food and accept the consequences!

          1. I think it is fairly reasonable to avoid bringing up all the things an actual victim could have done differently to avoid being victimized. Even though it isn’t victim blaming, I can understand how a recently traumatized victim might feel that way.

            There is one way in which people can make themselves completely rape proof, no matter how wasted or stupid they become. Just consent to sex with anyone and everyone beforehand. Then you are all set.

            1. I think it is fairly reasonable to avoid bringing up all the things an actual victim could have done differently to avoid being victimized.

              Sure, but the SJWs aren’t objecting to that, really.

              What they are objecting to is anyone pointing out that women have the ability to drastically reduce their risk of being raped by changing their own behavior. To them, this is patriarchal rape culture.

              And, I think a foreseeable result of their propagandizing against women managing their own risks is a reduction in risk management by women, leading to more rapes.

              1. I guess I don’t hear many people actually making that argument either. Which may simply be because I avoid having to listen to such people. (A problem with the internet is that you can find lots of people who believe any crazy shit you can think of. That makes it hard to really know if you are getting an accurate picture of the actual culture.)

                The SJW objection just doesn’t make sense. Whether you call it “patriarchal rape culture” or “some asshole rapists”, it exists and it is smart to do what you can to avoid being victimized, even if in a perfect world you wouldn’t have to.

                1. This is pretty much what I’ve said in those sorts of arguments.

                  “Yes. You are absolutely correct. In a world without rape-culture, you would be perfectly safe drinking yourself into a blackout stupor while surrounded by men of unknown provenance. We don’t live in that world.

            2. “I think it is fairly reasonable to avoid bringing up all the things an actual victim could have done differently to avoid being victimized. Even though it isn’t victim blaming, I can understand how a recently traumatized victim might feel that way.”
              But much of the behavior on the part of the victim is relevant to the investigation. Much of the feminist delusion, for example, that the police basically hate rape victims and believe they’re all sluts who were asking for it (this is literally what Amanda Marcotte said about police departments) is that they ask alleged victims whether they had anything to drink or any drugs, and if so how much. But asking those questions isn’t victim blaming, it’s necessary police work. The reliability of the victim’s story and its details are inextricably linked to her state of mind at the time of the event, including her intoxication status. Feminist stupidity reaches the level of superstition here in that they want us to believe that even the biochemical effects of alcohol on the brain don’t apply to a woman who is talking about rape, the story must still be believed without qualification. The fact that drunk or stoned people tell less accurate renditions of what actually happened is therefore sexist.

              1. Obviously investigators need to ask those questions. I’m mostly thinking of other people who might think it is appropriate to say “well you shouldn’t have done that”. That can wait. I’m also assuming an actual victim of an actual rape.

          2. For some people it’s arising out of the peculiar leftist notion that any decision where to face a consequence is one where one is not free.

            Freedom means being free from responsibility and consequence.

            That’s why true freedom means asking permission and obeying orders. That way you’re not responsible since it wasn’t your decision. Authority said it was OK or told you what to do. It’s not your fault.

          3. “For some people it’s arising out of the peculiar leftist notion that any decision where to face a consequence is one where one is not free. Thus, a person who chooses not to drink in order to reduce her vulnerability to sexual assault is being opressed by rape culture because she should be free to drink as much as she wants!”
            very well put!

        2. I don’t know if I’d go that far. As far as I can see, young women do get told to be careful, don’t get into bad situations, don’t get too wasted to avoid potential assault. When someone does actually get raped, it seems like people will tell you its horrible to suggest that the victim did anything to make the crime more likely. But I think the “don’t be stupid” message is out there.

          1. Victim blaming.

            1. nope – taking responsibility for the choices you make-
              Don’t go into a shark tank with a meat suit on,
              Don’t carry $5000 into the slums of Brazil and expect not to get robbed,
              Don’t “express” your libertarian opinion about Castro in downtown Havana and think they won’t imprison you
              And don’t go to Frat parties alone if you are an attractive female and not expect some unwanted sexual interest.

              If you don’t want sexual attention from drunken frat boys hang out at the Baptist Student Union or other church
              functions. Drunken college parties are for people that want something to happen- otherwise they wouldn’t be
              there.

              Just because you are a “victim” doesn’t mean that you have no responsibility in your own victimization. Be smart and stay away from the party lifestyle if you cannot accept responsibility for being there in the first place.

            2. How about avoiding being a victim in the first place?

              Don’t put yourself into situations with strangers where you are vulnerable. This has ALWAYS been true, but the left says ‘you can act as dangerously as you wanna be and you have no responsibility as an adult to do anything to keep yourself safe”.

              I’m a female, back in the day as a group of friends, we had many unspoken rules. If you go out, you leave with who you came with. No one gets stinking drunk. No one leaves with a strange guy. Pick your venue carefully. Don’t turn your back on your drink, don’t accept drinks from strangers. Don’t go to frat parties. Don’t be outnumbered on a gender level. Don’t go out in shoes that you can’t kick off or run in. Don’t park next to vans or cars with tinted windows. Don’t be alone on a dark street. Better to cough up cash as a group for a cab. I could go on, but you get the point.

              These things can keep you safer, not perfectly safe. You can argue about how men need to stop looking at women like meat, but you can also argue that women need to not act like meat

              Criminals hunt rabbits. Don’t be a drunk rabbit that can’t read a man or a room because you’re so hammered, your brain isn’t catching the signs of trouble.. Predators always start out looking for the limping antelope on the edge of the pack. Many crimes are crimes of opportunity. This is true for both men and women.

        3. they do want more rape. they get power from rape. that’s why they try to water down the definition of rape so much. Plus, just look at their reactions to these hoaxes. Instead of being relieved that no horrible rape occurred, they get upset by it. tells you everything you need to know about where their priorities lie.

          1. Again, I don’t know if I’d go that far. But they are definitely willing to use what rape there is to push their agenda.

            1. Zeb –

              I would.
              These women sought out the victim status in order to gain social standing and prestige at the expense of men who are the real victims in the case. That is rather despicable in my opinion. The feminist agenda also benefits from rape to advance its fake campus rape narrative that the use to promote its anti male myth and remain relevant.

              1. I suppose if “more rape” comes about from a change in definition, that’s true. But what you describe still doesn’t constitute wanting more rape by my standard.

                1. remember the liberal mantra “never let a crisis go to waste.”
                  Saul Alinsky’s social strategy – if there is no crisis, create one- there is no political advantage for radicals in peace and prosperity. Only with anxiety, social unrest, and crisis.

                  Having achieved most of its original objectives – social and economic equality with men, feminists have little domestic agenda to offer so they have to put forth the narrative of continued victimization of women. In order to do so, they need more victims – rape victims in particular. College administrations are willing co-conspirators – they know that they can assign guilt without the standards of proof necessary in a real court case.

                  1. I agree with that. But I still say it doesn’t mean they want more rape. Rape is a legitimate problem, if not as enormous a one as they claim. They have plenty of rape to work with (and plenty of work to do redefining it). But if rape somehow went away, they’d find something else to work with.

            2. I would agree with you Zeb that they don’t want more rape.

              I would argue that what they want is for men to be held morally and legally responsibly for everything, including the behavior of women. They don’t want women being careful, they want men walking on egg shells whenever they are around women, and feeling perpetually guilty about things they’ve been told they might or could do.

              It’s part of a narrative meant to guilt men men into doing more stuff for women just because they’re women, give more free things for women, and vote for candidates who chastise them for being men, etc.

              That’s what it’s about IMO: telling men: “we, women, get to do whatever we want, and you’re the ones who have to deal with the consequences, whatever they may be.” Freedom from responsibility, the ultimate privilege, is the ultimate aspiration of feminism.

              1. Yeah. That I pretty much agree with.

      2. First, the moral responsibility for committing bad acts always remains with the person or persons who commit bad acts.

        Second, the world is full of people inclined to commit bad acts, so everyone has a personal responsibility to not make his or her self an easy target.

        The guy or gal that steals your car is morally responsible for stealing your car. Leaving your car unlocked and running while you pop into the convenience store to buy a cup of coffee makes you irresponsible. Just ask your insurance agent.

        The guy (or gal) that rapes you is morally responsible for raping you. Getting passed out drunk in the company of a bunch of people you don’t know utterly is irresponsible. THAT IS NOT FUCKING BLAMING THE VICTIM.

        1. I like the use of responsible and irresponsible, playing off the other definition of responsible.

          Im gonna steal that.

          1. Spread it far and wide.

            1. It was very well said.

              1. Thanks. I am only a partial asshole.

                1. Did I ever…

                  1. nope. just clarifying for other people. I trust you enough to get blackout drunk with. 😉

        2. The obvious answer is rape insurance. If you are a young hot girl who tends to go out and get black-out drunk, your premiums will be higher. If you are an old fat guy who hardly ever goes out, not so much.

          1. I think they cover us old, fat dudes for pennies per month in premiums.

            1. However, getting coverage for a canoe trip in the deep south comes with a steep surcharge.

              1. You sure do got a purdy mouth kinnath.

                1. Uh, thanks, I suppose.

        3. I agree with you entirely. The insurance company won’t pay your claim if you act stupidly like the scenario you described.

        4. We should always make the point that blame and fault matter little, cause and effect are the only things that really matter.

          Now, the feminist counterargument is: it would be both fairer and easier to ‘teach men not to rape’ than to teach women to be careful.

          Which creates a false dichotomy: men are already taught not to rape, and almost all of them never do. The problem, as with most violent crime, is the small portion of the population that is impervious to social and cultural norms prohibiting anti-social behavior. Sociopathy and other personality disorders. So what the feminist is really saying is “wouldn’t it be easier to detect and cure sociopathy or the psychological problems resulting from child abuse with near perfect efficiency than to tell people to be careful?” And obviously, it isn’t.

          More frightening is the dilemma “wouldn’t it be more fair and easier to control the behavior of the male half of the population through totalitarian mechanisms than tell women to be careful.” This is probably more what feminists are getting at. Men are the perpetrators, women are the victims, or perhaps men are the ‘disease’ populace, and they need to be quarantined until the disease of rape has been eradicated. Feminists regularly choose safety over freedom, so the prevalence of this sort of mentality among them is hardly surprising, especially since their sacrificing someone else’s (men’s) freedom for their (women’s) safety.

      3. Its almost like the fact that someone has been raped is secondary to the opportunity to use that rape for political/social advantage.

        Precisely true. That seems to be the path of all social reform movements. They all have valid issues at the start, but eventually they end up making mountains out of molehills for political power. See also: 99% of the complaints about “racism” in America today. If you listen to the left these days, you’d think it was 1950, or 1850.

        1. If they were consistent in their bigotry, wouldn’t leftists be big fans of the idea of: ‘instead of teaching white people to lock their doors, let’s teach minorities not to steal.’ Same logic used to demonize target population, but once again, when they do it, for some reason, it’s ok.

          1. That reason is Privilege Theory, aka “Oppression Olympics”; what matters is that men are Privileged/Oppressors and minorities are Oppressed, such status being determined by their demographics rather than their actions. That latter idea is essentially to allowing students and faculty at prestigious educational institutions to regard themselves as Oppressed, since without it there would be a whole lot of people pointing out that if you’re at an Ivy League school, worldwide you’re not just part of the 1% or even the .01%, you’re part of the .0000001% and therefore extremely small-p privileged.

            The problem with Privilege Theory (and its offshoot Intersectionality) is that it’s ultimately just a way of trying to assign winners and losers in power struggles between rival factions (see the writings of the Founders for plenty of cautionary uses of that particular f-word). It represents a miserable and pessimistic view of humanity in which basically all human interaction can be reduced to something resembling tween clique rivalries.

            1. As a followup, note that Privilege Theory has been conspicuously absent from the movements for marriage equality and marijuana legalization, which have been far more successful far more rapidly than most social-change (or, dare I say, social-justice) movements. If gay activists had worked off the assumption that Westboro Baptist was representative of heterosexuals as a group and that GLBT people could only become first-class citizens if straight people confronted their straightness and came to realize that it was oppressing gay people, Bowers would still be law and there’d be a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But they didn’t.

      4. “If you are using rape as a tool for social control, how are you better, morally and ethically, than the people running paramilitaries or secret police who also use rape as a tool for social control?”

        Ummm… not to belabor the obvious, but there is a large moral difference between taking advantage of a completely unrelated third party’s atrocities to push an agenda, and committing atrocities to push an agenda. You know, it’s the part that involves committing atrocities.

    3. People should do what they want. Just understand risks and consequences. I’m sure there are plenty of girls who intend to go out and get wasted and bang some dude. Good for them. Just don’t complain when you wake up and realize it wasn’t the dude you wanted to bang.

      I have two points I’m trying to make here. One is that defining drunk sex as rape is terrible. Getting drunk and hooking up is a fairly normal, if perhaps not entirely healthy, part of human interaction. If you are passed out and someone takes advantage, that person is a piece of shit. But if you are easily convinced to do things you usually wouldn’t when you are drunk, you probably shouldn’t get so drunk. If you are responsible for who you hit with your car when drunk, you are responsible for who you decide to fuck. The other point is that if you are the sort of person who is prone to getting drunk to the point of insensibility, or who makes lots of stupid decisions while drunk, don’t fucking get drunk unless you are very comfortable with the people you are with.

      1. Yeah pretty much Zeb. Rape is an issue for women. That means they have to be a bit more careful than men. As a man, I can’ go out and get plastered alone and unless it is in a bad neighborhood, not worry too much as long as I can get a cab home. A woman really can’t do that. She can but she is in more danger than I am. That sucks but that is the way it is.

        1. She can, if she does it in the right place with the right friends with her. They can pour her into a cab.

          It really isnt any different than for a guy, just the number of places a guy can get away with doing that alone is larger.

        2. that’s called biology – women and men ARE different. Women and men are not and never will be biologically the same and all of the feminists claiming otherwise cannot change that.

          And yes women must be more careful where they go and who they are around. That is their responsibility.

          It is just like if I go down to an entertainment part of town where the bars are and drink and then drive home at 4 am. I know that the police write a ton of DUI’s in the area so if I go down there and act irresponsibly then I am to blame for putting myself in a potentially bad situation. I knew better.
          The girls who go to these parties know better too. These parties aren’t tea socials at the local church.

      2. I’m sure there are plenty of girls who intend to go out and get wasted and bang some dude. Good for them. Just don’t complain when you wake up and realize it wasn’t the dude you wanted to bang.

        This happened to a girl I dated when I lived in DC. When she was in college (at an Ivy) she went to some party (with the intention of pissing off her ex) got shit faced, banged one guy, then banged his ugly roomate. Guess which one “raped” her.

        1. I’ma guess the ugo.

      3. “One is that defining drunk sex as rape is terrible.”

        Just to be clear, you’re talking about stupid sex, as resulting from alcohol-impaired judgement? Not dragging someone who’s unconscious or semi-conscious but physically incapacitated person off somewhere and fucking them? Because the latter is pretty clearly rape.

        1. A big complication here (and it relates to Robby’s original point) is that the body can absorb only so much alcohol in a given period. Thus if, as most college kids do (heading toward Robby’s point) you drink steadily until you reach your desired buzz, you won’t yet be feeling the effects of anything you drank in the last hour or so and you’re going to keep getting drunker and drunker (possibly to pass-out levels) even after you’ve stopped drinking for the night.

          This means that it’s entirely possible for two people to begin a sexual encounter when they’re both drunk but not incapacitated, and for one or both of them to become incapacitated as time goes on. And it’s likely that neither of them will accurately remember what happened, since it’s possible to black out (not be able to form lasting memories of what’s currently happening to you) well before passing out.

          Finally getting to Robby’s point, fewer kids would drink like that if they didn’t feel rushed by the narrow window of booze availability and the need to avoid getting busted. They’d drink more slowly and since they’d be feeling more of the effects of what they already drank, they’d be quicker to say “I’ve had enough” to themselves (another benefit would be fewer hangovers).

    4. We can’t be honest and admit that women by virtue of their sex have to be more cautious and have better judgement than men.

      No, what it would require is admitting that most of what is getting labeled “rape” is not rape in any conceivable sense of the term. In the majority of cases where the woman is drunk, so is the man. Did they rape each other? Or are we going to have the different law for men and women?

      In cases where consent was revoked retroactively, I think it’s fair to say what we’re talking about isn’t rape.

      What we’d have to admit is that what is going on here isn’t an attempt to combat rape. It’s an attempt to give women the authority to ruin men’s lives

      1. Well, if it’s one thing we’ve learned from the SJWs and the feminazis it’s that women are equal to if not superior to men in all respects, including victimization. Therefore, while it is perfectly reasonable to expect women to be physically capable of boxing with or playing football with men it is automatically the man who is culpable in a “mutual” rape scenario, all things being equal. Because women are philosopher kings and warrior poets until there’s a man who can be at fault, at which point they become martyrs.

    5. how about a simple disclaimer put out by the College Administration.
      Dear First quarter freshmen.
      Drunken parties (including frat parties) are places where irresponsible activities take place. If you choose to parties, unintended consequences are almost guaranteed to occur. These include property and bodily damage, and unwanted sexual advances including in rare cases, rape. Attendance at such events implies a willful disregard for personal safety and a tacit consent for others to act in such a manner. The college cannot and will not be held liable for the individual actions of people who voluntarily attend said parties and drink alcohol. If problems arise from your willful attendance it will strictly a matter for the police to adjudicate and no actions or investigations by the college will occur until an independent court has rendered a verdict in the matter.

  2. Another useful idea is something my father did when I was growing up: inform me that drinking has consequences, and stress that I would have to own said consequences.

    Of course nowadays a father would probably be jailed for teaching that to a kid, to the unanimous huzzahs of the progressives.

    1. Specific application of the more general rule my father advised me to follow:

      “Don’t be stupid on purpose.”

      1. I’m saving this for my son. I needed it that distilled

        1. I always tell the children “Stupidity is the number one cause of death”.

    2. Consequences have been made irrelevant. Entire realms of society are devoted to ensuring consequences become fluke events, disassociated from one’s own actions, an arbitrary act from the hand of God, if by “God” you mean “government”, and they do.

  3. I never understand what pregaming has to do with it. I went to university somewhere with a drinking age of 18, and we pregamed all the time. Because drinking at home was still cheaper than up in the club.

    1. Pregaming is absolutely not caused by America’s drinking age since they do the exact same thing in England where the drinking age is 18.

      Pregaming is caused by price markups at bars. I still pregame before going out and I’ve been 21 for a long time now.

      1. Yeah. But then also…these kids are obviously not going to bars. So why the hell are they pregaming at all?

        1. From my own memory of college …

          (I went to school w/ a fake ID, and had lots of experience drinking in bars in high school, so found the whole “dorm room pre-drink before the other dorm party” thing odd myself)

          …. the ‘pre-game’ purpose was basically social-lubrication. People didn’t want to show up to a large-crowd event sober themselves and feel awkward, so they drank with their friends before arriving at some frat party or public event (like sports or outdoor concerts) where they’d be sneaking booze as well.

        2. Probably because you have to wait in line to get a drink at the party.

          It’s not really pre-gaming. It’s just starting early.

          When I was in college parties tended to start at 10 PM. I’ve never been into staying up all night that much, so I wanted to start my partying at 7 or 8.

        3. College parties. I went to parties every weekend as a freshman/sophomore and was obviously not of legal drinking age.

          You pregame because the party doesn’t start until 10:00 but you want to start drinking at 8:00, so let’s break out the rum, woooooo!

          Yeah, I don’t know how you try and prevent this issue when it really comes down to a specific sort of drinking culture.

          1. Great minds.

            When I was at college, “official” parties were supposed to check IDs. Most of the time they just put an X on everyone’s hand rather than bother checking.

            It did help that campus security were not police and didn’t care.

        4. We pre-gamed before going to a frat or a house party because we wanted to load up on Beam (only beer was allowed at the frats) and have half a buzz on before the crush of people competing for Natty Lite. After graduation, we pre-gamed prior to going to the bars because of what you and Irish have said: $7 Miller Lites on a shit salary.

          Now if I pre-game I just fire up MarioKart and never make it out of the house.

        5. Lines at the keg at these big frat parties tend to get pretty long

      2. ^^This, I been 21 longer than I haven’t been and started legally drinking at 18. Pregaming is still a part of the SOP.

        1. Reading about all this drinking and different types of drinking make me so glad that I’m an introvert non-drinker.

        2. We used to pregame before going to the club or out to bars (still do, sometimes) but nowadays if I start drinking at a private residence that’s where I’m staying. Post-game, sure, but not so much pregame anymore. Of course, I’m 36 and live close to my friends, but still.

    2. It has nothing to do with anything. Most alcohol related sexual assaults could be prevented by women using better judgement about where, how much and with whom they drank. It is just like most drunken bar fights and public intoxication and assault arrests could be prevented if men did the same thing.

      These people hate the idea of personal responsibility and they hate being made to face reality rather than pretend it isn’t so. Somehow the idea that “since there are always going to be assholes out there, you need to use some judgement and not make yourself vulnerable to said assholes” became defending the assholes because you want women to be less vulnerable to them. The whole thing is insane.

      1. It’s especially great since the same logic never applies in other situations.

        Let’s say someone never locks their house and they live in a bad neighborhood. I say ‘hey, maybe you should lock your house.’ They then get burgled at a later date.

        Does that mean I’m ‘blaming the victim’ because I told them how best to avoid being burglary victims? No – it means I tried to give them advice to avoid becoming a victim.

        The same is true of sexual assault. There are obvious things you can do to decrease its likelihood. Telling someone about those obvious things doesn’t mean you’re blaming victims, it means you’d like there to be fewer of them.

        1. It doesn’t apply because they don’t mean what they say. RC called it above. They don’t give a shit about rape or preventing it. They care about using the issue of rape as a tool for social control.

    3. Yes but did you get so deunk you could stay deunk all night? Or just drunk enough to get through the night with a couple drinks to maintain.

    4. I don’t pregame. If I pregame, I just wind up sitting in my apartment drinking wine by myself all night until I fall asleep. I realized that it’s because I hate bars, and prefer wine to beer. So the more I drink, the less self-discipline and sense of delayed gratification I have, both of which I require to force myself to go to a bar. It’s like work to me. I fucking hate this species, why couldn’t we choose sandwhich shops or doughnut shops as the default congregation areas?

  4. Rapists, in fact, are rational actors who want to commit their crimes without a struggle and ensure that they escape punishment.

    What about those rapists who themselves under the influence at the time of the incident, not aware that their partner will come to regret the drunken coupling the next day and retroactively turn them into sexual predators?

    Anyway, there’s no way in hell you’re ever going to get NMDAA repealed. We’ve been infantilizing that age range increasingly for decades, and now you want to come along and give the nation’s little tiny babies alcohol? You monster.

    1. I think your problem here is your definition of “rapist”. Somehow drunken sex has become “rape”, which is another level insanity to all of this.

      1. Drunk sex is rape. Prostitution is sex trafficking. Teens taking naked selfies is child pornography.

        Puritans are alive and well, and just as insane as ever.

        1. That is not fair to the Puritans. The Puritans may have been oppressive assholes but they were at least rationally consistent, honest about their intentions and not insane. These people are the opposite of all of that. A naked picture of an underage girl is child porn, unless it is in a big Hollywood movie, then it is art. Prostitution is “sex trafficking” unless the patron is someone they like, then it is just great. And drunken sex is “rape” unless it is the man being taken advantage of and then it is just good fun.

          1. A naked picture of an underage girl is child porn, unless it is in a big Hollywood movie, then it is art.

            I still dont understand how Blame it on Rio (and etc) are okay just because the underage girls parents sign a consent form.

            1. Me either. Michelle Johnson was 17 when that film was made. If the FBI catches me downloading pictures of a 17 year old girl, I am going to prison and probably for a long time. Yet, I can own that movie and it is okay? Same goes for Pretty Baby. Brooke Shields was 12 years old and did full frontal nudity in that movie.

            2. What I don’t understand is why anything that isn’t obviously sexual exploitation of a child are not considered OK. Classical paintings of nudes and tasteful photographs aren’t considered porn. Why would it be if it involved minors?

              Another big problem is that a 16 year old is the same as a 7 year old under child porn laws. Which is absolutely absurd.

              1. I don’t get that either Zeb. You can’t draw that line because there is no real way to draw it. The better system would be to criminalize the actual exploitation of children and stop trying to punish people for having the wrong pictures.

                1. The problem is you can’t actually make that argument in public without being accused of being a pedophile who wants it legalized so you can rape little kids.

        2. And saying “hi there” is ‘street harassment.’ And my penis is a weapon.

      2. Once in a while I’ll stumble on a post at a feminist website where the commenters are claiming they were raped and literally half of the claims are clearly not rape and a large portion of the rest are dubious.

        I once saw a post on a feminist site where a woman seriously said that she’d been raped because she had gotten kind of tipsy, started making out with a guy, told him he could undress her, then said ‘yeah go ahead’ before they had sex.

        She then claimed ‘yeah, go ahead’ wasn’t enough consent because it was obvious she didn’t really want to but was too scared (for reasons doomed to be forever unclear) to say no – even though by her own account the guy had not done anything to make her frightened.

        Basically she had consensual sex because she was too much of a coward to tell a guy to stop after she gave him verbal consent and she’s now using the fact that she’s completely spineless to claim she was raped.

        1. What a vile and evil ideology. Perception is reality in some ways. If someone thinks they have been raped, the psychological damage is going to be the same or close to the same regardless of whether it happened or not. Here we have feminists who are convincing young women who otherwise would have either enjoyed an experience or just written it off to making a bad decision and convincing them that they were really raped. Think about how horrible and cruel that is.

        2. “Basically she had consensual sex because she was too much of a coward to tell a guy to stop after she gave him verbal consent and she’s now using the fact that she’s completely spineless to claim she was raped.”

          I doubt that cowardice was really the reason. More than likely she was horny and wanted sex at the time, but later she felt guilty about having a drunk one night stand with a not so attractive guy. So she assuages her guilt by blaming everything on him.

        3. By feminist logic, if a paranoid schizophrenic murders the mailman because, being delusional, he thought he was an assassin sent by the KGB to kill him, then he was justified, because even though the mailman was innocent, the delusion justified the action based on it.

          In this case, the feminists are schizophrenics; their delusion, the belief that inside virtually every man is an-incredible-hulk-rapist that will emerge from his Bruce Banner the moment the word ‘no’ it uttered, and therefore, in their constant fear of the rape-Hulk coming out, women who consent to sex are still really doing it under implicit coercion.

      3. Drunken sex is rape?

        I raped my wife this weekend. Or she raped me. We raped each other?

        1. No, you raped her. A drunken woman has no agency and a drunken man always does. So sayeth our Universities.

      4. I think Fist is talking about people (mostly, but not entirely, men) who become very aggressive under the influence of alcohol and actually commit crimes, including rape. There seems to be some evidence that such people are mostly low-level sociopaths who turn into high-level sociopaths when they get drunk.

    2. Meanwhile in the third world dystopia of Germany there are beer vending machines. America has never been able to escape it’s Puritan roots.

      /shakes head

      1. We actually did for a while. Then World War I and Wilson came along and while everyone who drank was off fighting, they passed prohibition and we have really never recovered from it.

        1. Suffrage. The root problem is Suffrage.

          1. There is something to that. If only men voted in this country, our government would look completely different and would be much smaller and less oppressive.

            1. At the time of prohibition, divorce was unthinkable, wives were still nearly property of their husbands, and drunkenness was one of the highest priorities of women. Prohibition would have never passed without the coalition of pissed-off wives and Christian zealots.

              And modernly, women are the driving force in government programs that essentially replace “breadwinners” with welfare checks.

              1. There is a real connection between the rise of the divorce culture and the rise of the welfare state. If women can no longer depend on men to support them, they will look to the state to do so. Outside of the black vote, the most solidly liberal voting group is unmarried women. Married women tend to vote much more conservatively.

                1. If women can no longer depend on no longer want men to support them, they will look to the state to do so.

                  Just a minor difference in point of view.

                  Some women view marriage as a form of oppression. To these women, government assistance is freedom.

            2. I love how helpless this portrays men. Subjugated by our awesome power. You can almost picture this frail, huddled mass of American men, cowering before the long shadow of Gigantess The Mighty.

              Hamster is pleased. You will live when we have full dominion.

              1. You know, I like my mother, and my wife, and my daughter, and my granddaughters. I have always viewed them as fully functioning people due every right and every responsibility that any man would have under the legal system. And that was true long before the first generation of feminists started making waves back in the 60’s.

                And yet, somehow, the “women’s” vote as a block produces results that I find abhorrent. I really cannot understand it.

                For clarification: “women’s” in scare quotes represent the most vocal, most politically active block of voters and politicians that I have been watching since I was old enough to get a grasp of what politics was about.

                1. And yet, somehow, the “women’s” vote as a block produces results that I find abhorrent. I really cannot understand it.

                  That’s what happens when policies backed with violence are made based upon motherly instincts.

                  1. Dad would let me do stuff that would have freaked mom out if she found out about them.

                2. Promise group A free stuff and privileges at the expense of group B, and there is almost no group A in the world that won’t grab as much as they can get and drop a few turds on group B while they’re at it just for giggles. It’s especially easy when you’ve successfully convinced group B that their punishment is deserved to get them to put up with it.

              2. Can I have my own see-through ball to roll around in? If so, I promise to denounce many, many wreckers and mansheviks.

      2. Rockwell Automation had beer vending machines in the lobby at their Milwaukee HQ in 2005. They were later removed, I never heard why. But I’m guessing it had more to do with lawyers than Puritanism.

    3. The NMDAA is based on good intentions. If you oppose it then you must have bad intentions.

      1. We couldn’t just do nothing. We HAD to do something. (Something isn’t nothing, after all.) And the NMDAA was something. Therefore, we had to do it.

        1. Hey, now you’re thinking the right way. Are you sure you didn’t go to J-School at Columbia?

        2. Sir Humphrey Applebee raises an appreciative eyebrow.

          1. Sir Humphrey is a god.

        3. Something is nothing!

          /Tony

    4. No drinking or smoking until 26.

    5. What about the fat chicks who trick drunk guys into having sex? Will they finally get the prosecution they deserve?

      1. Now that’s a survivor meeting that it’s hard to keep up the attendance level at.

        1. I’d say offer donuts but that would just attract the predators.

  5. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA)?passed by an alarmist Congress in 1984?forced every state in the country to capitulate to a drinking age of 21 or lose federal highway funds.

    I’ve wondered this a few times, but since SCOTUS said the Feds could not compel states to set up health insurance exchanges or lose their Medicaid funding could this decision not also be used to invalidate the Feds extorting concessions from states by holding highway funds hostage?

    1. This thought has dawned on a few of the more sentient progs. The entire Prog case for saving Obamacare is that Congress doesn’t have the right to punish states for not doing what the Feds want them to. As much as Progs claim to love Obamacare, I don’t think they are going to like living with a decision that said the Feds can no longer punish states for not adopting federally preferred policies.

    2. That’s funny.

    3. I’m sure that that’s totally different because The Children.

  6. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detail…. http://www.navjob.com

  7. the reason is obvious: the federally-mandated drinking age of 21 fosters a culture of reckless, illicit drinking among teens who never learned moderation.

    My own personal anecdote: my drinking consumption went down after I turned 21. Sure, I’m a moderate drunk to these days, but back before I turned 21 it was a race to get as fucked up as I could. When I became “of age” the whole drinking experience lost its subversion.

  8. OT: Abe Lincoln, Libertarian Hero. Fight!

    Now, if one is talking at a level of generality from which a libertarian would say that the officeholder should shrug off all his legal obligations and limits in the service of the immediate, and illegal, abolition of slavery, then perhaps “most libertarians” would not sign on to Lincoln’s scruples about his constitutional authority and obligations as President. But then libertarianism must have no respect for the rule of law, and I cannot accept that notion. If we’re going to be accurate about Lincoln’s aims in the Civil War, details like the above are crucial, lest we be drawn into the same simplistic notion of the War that the Doughface Libertarians portray: that Lincoln only cared about the Union and didn’t care about slavery. Lincoln was always emphatic that slavery was the cause of the war?and he wanted to see it done away with. But he rightly saw that his power to do something about it was limited by the Constitution. He sought, as a practical political leader must do, to work as best he could within his authority to accomplish the aims desired. An argument can be made, and Garrison and other anti-political abolitionists made it, that that is a form of cowardice and sin. But I side with Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, that it is statesmanship and ultimately a good thing.

    1. There’s a whole lotta stupid Lincoln articles coming out lately. Apparently its the anniversary of him getting capped or something.

      1. I saw that headline in my twitter feed and couldn’t bear to click it.

        1. I know. If only Lincoln hadn’t been such a tyrant and let the South leave the union, we could have had slavery for decades longer than we did. And even better, we could have fought a war over control of the West later with even more lethal weapons and more perfected total warfare. That guy was a real monster.

          1. Lincoln’s single-minded devotion to keeping the union at any cost that made the Civil War so bloody. Was it the least bad thing that could happen? Maybe, but to use tyrant in the Grerk sense isn’t too much of a stretch. Or maybe dictator in the Roman sense. He used power in a fundamentally radical way that was heretofore unseen in America and radically altered the understanding pf the Union and the Constitution. Again, not saying it wasn’t the best outcome available given the circumstances, but I would say that Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt fundamentaly changed the US through Executive power. Is it wrong to bemoan Washington raising an army to put down the Whiskey rebellion as fundamentally at odds with the way many libertarians would have the Federal government act?

            1. It would make for a more sensible libertarian critique of Lincoln to focus on the ‘ends justifying the means’ element of it, or arguing that, just because excessive executive power was instrumental in ending slavery doesn’t mean it should be left on the table; it should be argued that that is like saying that, because Cincinnatus was such a responsible Roman dictator, clearly, the concept of a dictator is a good thing. And by disagreeing with the concept of a dictator, you’re basically saying Cincinnatus and all his accomplishments were evil.

              But when someone seriously tries to make the argument that Lincoln was the worst president ever or what have you, based on his results. Because the bad results you’d have to attribute to him would have to outweigh potentially decades of continued slavery for millions of people.

              Better way to put it would be, a dangerous tool was used once to do (or indirectly resulted in) something good, but that doesn’t make the tool any less dangerous or that it shouldn’t be kept under lock and key.

              1. I’m torn because I have cultural and familial sympathies with the Confederacy, but ethical sympathies with the abolitionists. You can’t really say for sure what would’ve happened had Lincoln not prosecuted the war, or had he sued for peace, but it certainly seems that slavery would’ve kept on truckin’ for some years more had events not happened as they did.

                But, it pays to remember that Lincoln pushed for the Emancipation Proclamation because he wanted to capitalize on a Union victory during a pivotal point in the war and because it would allow him to legally accept black soldiers into the Union army, not because of his own sympathies or moral stance. The point being, this was a strategic decision, not a moral one, and should be viewed as such.

                In that context, I think it’s perfectly reasonable as a libertarian to see slavery as immoral and indefensible and to see the use of force to end it as totally justifiable, while at the same time seeing Lincoln’s actions and presidency in general as dictatorial and counter to the principles of a free society.

              2. I’m torn because I have cultural and familial sympathies with the Confederacy, but ethical sympathies with the abolitionists. You can’t really say for sure what would’ve happened had Lincoln not prosecuted the war, or had he sued for peace, but it certainly seems that slavery would’ve kept on truckin’ for some years more had events not happened as they did.

                But, it pays to remember that Lincoln pushed for the Emancipation Proclamation because he wanted to capitalize on a Union victory during a pivotal point in the war and because it would allow him to legally accept black soldiers into the Union army, not because of his own sympathies or moral stance. The point being, this was a strategic decision, not a moral one, and should be viewed as such.

                In that context, I think it’s perfectly reasonable as a libertarian to see slavery as immoral and indefensible and to see the use of force to end it as totally justifiable, while at the same time seeing Lincoln’s actions and presidency in general as dictatorial and counter to the principles of a free society.

        2. Be glad. I’m washing my brain now.

          There is a certain class of “culture-studies” professors for whom history is not an objective set of events/material which one should attempt to understand in context…

          …but is rather just a box of action-figure toys that you can use to help illustrate contemporary social debates.

          Because why was Lincoln killed? Well, he thought #BlackLivesMatter, and JW Booth? he was totally like a Tea Partier. The End.

          History is fun.

      2. There is no more idiotic hill for Libertarians to die on than the “Lincoln was a tyrant” hill. Yet, they continue to do it. They just can’t help themselves.

        1. Seriously. Slavery and the entire socio-economic system of the Antebellum South was an evil that needed to be eradicated. I find it embarrassing that libertarian revisionists go to such great lengths to demonize Lincoln and defend the Confederacy.

          The Union may not have had the consent of the governed within the Confederate states but neither did the Confederacy have the consent of the millions of slaves it held in chains.

          1. My other favorite is that Lincoln doesn’t deserve credit for ending slavery because he didn’t start the war intending to do it. The same people who rightly excoriate Progs for claiming that good intentions make up for the harms caused by their policies, when it comes to Lincoln claim that the freeing of millions of people from generational bondage doesn’t matter because Lincoln didn’t have good intentions when he did it.

            1. There’s plenty to criticize about Lincoln without descending into Confederate apologia. One of my favorite speeches ever is is this one by Frederick Douglass, given at the dedication of a Lincoln monument in DC in 1876.

          2. Yeah. Better to abolish the right of secession and make us all slaves to our masters in Washington DC.

            1. Yes, that is, in fact, an objectively better situation than actual, no-shit chattel slavery.

              1. Yes, that is, in fact, an objectively better situation than actual, no-shit chattel slavery.

                True. I was being…. sarcasmic.

            2. You don’t like that. But I bet if you were a slave in the antebellum South you would disagree. Why do you expect them to remain in slavery so you can keep your right of secession? If you want to blame someone for destroying the right of secession, don’t blame Lincoln, blame the South for using it for such a vile and evil purpose.

            3. And what Geoff said. Ask yourself, would you agree to legalize generational slavery as a price for the explicit recognition of the right of states to leave the union? I wouldn’t.

            4. Why don’t you become my actual slave for a year and then tell me whether that’s worse than the current arrangement with the federal government?

              1. I’m going to need my lawyer to review the contract, but sounds like a solid career move for me.

            5. Why do people think Lincoln singelhandedly was responsible for that (and setting aside the ridiculous equivalence of a modern US citizen and an antebellum chattel slave)? Thirty years prior, Jackson strong-armed South Carolina into staying in the Union. Secession by states was not a universally accepted right in the pre-Civil War. The Confederacy didn’t even follow it themselves, as they refused to let pro-Union regions stay in the USA. Southern secession in the first place was also in no way a legitimate case of the right of secession, as a small portion of the population made the decision for the entire population (many of whom were not free to leave if they didn’t like the decision they had no say in).

              1. *era

              2. The regional thing doesn’t hold water. The States were the legally recognized territories that entered into the “Union.” The entry into the Union was voluntary. Barring specific language otherwise, the nature of the word and the voluntary entry into it means it could be departed from.

                The following three things should have happened. 1) The organization of a constitutional convention to strike out the offending clauses in the Constitution allowing for slavery. 2) After the likely failing of that, the secession of the NON-slaveholding states from the Union. 3) A principled war of liberation.

                Criticizing Lincoln for lacking principles and honesty in how he handled the run-up and execution of the Civil War doesn’t make someone a neo-Confederate or slavery apologist.

                1. Oh, it holds water. Government is violence and force. And that’s all. The US government started turning its back on its founding principles on day one.

                  Anyway, bitching about Lincoln is pretty close to White Indian idiocy. Yeah, sure, if civilization had never happened we might all be happily gamboling about the planes. And if the Civil War might have happened, the US Federal government might not have become so big so fast and the right to secede might exist.

                  But that’s not what happened and we aren’t going back. Tough shit.

        2. Yeah, I agree. Lincoln is not more perfect or good than any other president. But he’s no monster either. And the civil war would probably have happened with or without him.

          While the Union wasn’t fighting a pure, moral war to end slavery by any means, the South was definitely fighting for slavery.

          1. True, but the issue went a little deeper than just, “Let’s all fight to keep our slaves.” Most of the men who took bullets for the South had never owned a slave — they were too poor. Slavery was an issue, sure, but many of your average ordinary Southerners viewed it in a context of the states’ individual right of self-determination.

        3. To be fair, he was a tyrant but there are better reasons to call him that then just not wanting to let the south leave, keeping their vile institution.

          Like conscription for starters.

  9. “a cult of secret sociopaths executing an elaborate and premeditated ritual that necessitates luring a fully conscious victim to her their doom”

    You make it sound like its a bad thing.

  10. I’m not convinced. I joined the service at 18 and could drink on base, and we weren’t exactly getting together after work to sip merlot and discuss post modernism. We drank to get loaded. It was because we were a bunch of young people gathered together.

  11. I’d like to think that this problem would magically go away if we’d just lower the drinking age again. But I attended UVA just after the drinking age changed to 21. Getting blind falling-down drunk every weekend had been a big part of the culture for a very long time; it wasn’t raising the drinking age that caused that. If anything, that was when the greatest excesses of the hard-drinking party tradition (such as the infamous “Easters Weekend” parties) went into decline. It’s easy to forget after 30 years, and think somehow that drunken partying at colleges is a new problem. Nope.

    In my time, you’d see hordes of first-years migrating towards the fraternities in the evenings, cup in hand– kids just getting their first taste of real freedom away from home and using it to get smashed. And fraternities eager to court them, throwing huge open parties. Everybody knew someone who’d pretty much lost their whole first year to partying. Maybe if the drinking age were much much lower– 16? 14?– more of those kids would have gotten it out of their systems before college, alcohol would be less mysterious and new. But just dropping it to 18 isn’t going to fix anything: for the typical freshman, alcohol will still be exciting and new and previously-forbidden, plus also newly legal-to-them. Of *course* that guarantees excess.

    1. Maybe people were better at drinking back then. Or were more accepting that when you go out and get wasted you might end up banging someone you didn’t really want to bang.

      Young people have always liked to get together and get drunk.

      I think you are probably right that dropping it to 18 wouldn’t do too much. Most people still wouldn’t have been able to drink legally before college. But what has changed is tolerance for high school age drinking. Now that parents can get in trouble for hosting an underage drinking party, the only real drinking they are exposed to is people all of the same age basically figuring out how drunk it is possible to get.

      I don’t think a drinking age is necessary at all. It just doesn’t seem to be a big problem in places with no age or a poorly enforced one. Maybe what we should do is to do it like they do in most of Europe. Have a drinking age (or not in a few cases), but completely ignore it.

    2. Getting blind falling-down drunk every weekend had been a big part of the culture for a very long time; it wasn’t raising the drinking age that caused that.

      Probably since the 1920s.

    3. The drinking age in most countries (for all intents and purposes) or is lower than 21, but the youth there gets hammered all the time. Asians hit 2,3 drinking establishments on a given night regularly. America’s frats have nothing on the bar scenes over there. If you just want to drink bottles of sake at home, you have to take care of the kids, listen to your wife, or get nagged by Jewish caliber parents.

      America does not have a severe drinking problem, at least compared to some other places. If I’m not mistaken, we’re not even in the top 10 of alcoholic nations. Reason insists that underage drinking is on the decline, which sort deflates the idea that drinking ages induce more drinking.

      1. Maybe the key is that they learn how to drink by drinking a lot at a younger age. It seems like a lot of the problem at colleges is not getting too drunk, but getting very drunk and acting like an idiot. There are definitely people who are better at drinking than others.

        When I went to college, I had already pretty much figured out what I wanted from alcohol and I rarely got stupidly drunk. And when I did I usually went home or took a nap under a bush or something. For a lot of other people for whom complete freedom to drink was a totally new thing it was like they were still in the experimental stage where you find new levels of drunkenness to explore every night..

        1. I don’t know if I buy that. Habitual drinkers do not seem to be marginally more sensible when drink than non-drinkers. I think the idea of ‘learning to be drunk’ sounds pretty tenuous to me.

          Also, XM is correct. The US is not worse than other countries when it comes to drinking. If there are more deaths here, it is because we drive more, not because we drink more. Hell, in many Italian cities half the roads aren’t even drivable; far less drunk driving.

          I really don’t think lowering the drinking age will make much of a difference one way or the other. One could just as easily argue that the drinking age encourages kids to stay home and drink, rather than go out, which would be arguably more dangerous. Just playing devil’s advocate. But my position is that it’s an arbitrary law with few real consequences, other than some unnecessary criminal records.

          1. Maybe I’m not typical. But I certainly learned to drink in a mostly non-stupid way by the time I was in college. And I think that not having a “zero-tolerance” environment for drinking when growing up helped. My parents and most of my friends’ parents put up with a reasonable amount of drinking and pot smoking and I think that helped me learn to be more responsible with it and not to go nuts when I was out on my own.

            1. The key is having a responsible person who can limit how much and how fast you can drink, who can tell you, “hold up; you aren’t even feeling that last drink yet”, who can cut off if you start acting stupid. I know people from the UK who were actually taught how to drink in (boarding) school; the key lesson they learned is that once you’ve had a couple drinks, your buzz will keep growing for quite a while (after a couple drinks, like any kids they wanted more right away, but the teachers made them wait at least an hour, after which the kids were pretty satisfied with how they felt and didn’t slam their next drinks).

  12. Jackie’s story was always false.

    1. Well done. Someone needs to be absurdly hyper-literal.

  13. “It was actually the very first thing in the story: Jackie claimed she wasn’t drunk. That detail made her story unusual, given that alcohol abuse is both the issue undergirding the campus rape crisis and the problem for which there is a more obvious solution.”

    Say it with me Robby – there is no campus rape crisis. There is no campus rape crisis.

    You’ll feel better when you give up this delusion.

    1. I honestly have no idea whether or not there is a campus rape crisis. Or even what would constitute a campus rape crisis.

      1. I believe college students are less likely to be raped than other women the same age. So either there is no crisis or there’s an even worse crisis that SJWs don’t give a shit about, because fuck poor women.

        1. I don’t have enough information to believe anything. Though the rape stats that get thrown around don’t seem very plausible.

          1. Having lived on campuses for six years, and read all the relevant statistics (as opposed to the feminist manufactured ones), I can say unequivocally there is no more a college rape crisis than there is a college castration crisis or a college kidnapping crisis or a college arson crisis.

            1. That’s been my gut feeling all along. The whole thing sounds a bit ridiculous. But I only know things that other people tell me. I have been known to occasionally be a bit naive about how horrible people can be.

        1. That’s not too surprising. 20% is still a lot, though.

          I think it would help if there were a bit more breakdown in the category of “rape and sexual assault”. Certainly, all non-consensual sexual contact is bad. But there is a big difference between a boob-grab and forced penetration. But both could count as “sexual assault”. Everyone has an idea in their head about what “sexual assault” consists of, but I bet it is rarely in line with the legal definition used in a study like that.

          Not to say that being groped at a party is something that should be ignored or excused. But I think “1 in 4 college women get unwanted touching at some point” is going to shock and horrify a lot less than “1 in 5 is raped” and for good reason.

  14. Here’s what I’d like to know: how do these university panjandrums keep their jobs after explicitly declaring themselves to be abject failures at educating their students and preparing them for life in the wide world?

    Recently, the president(-?- I ain’t got time fact check) of the University of Montana released a statement saying, essentially, “The students at this school are nothing more than ignorant, unruly, drunken savages who absolutely should not be allowed to carry firearms on campus.”

    Whose job is it to tame them?

    1. And I thought it was their job to educate them.

      I think a big problem is that colleges are mostly sold as the whole package of education, social life, stupid activism, etc. rather than a place where adults can take classes and work on academics.

      1. If some of those adults happen to rape each other or drink too much, why is that the college administration’s problem? Why should they do anything except evict unruly tenants? If actual crimes happen, the police can deal with it (to the extent that they are willing or capable).

  15. There’s a whole lotta stupid Lincoln articles coming out lately.

    David Brooks (fuck that “linking” business) yearns for him; wants to know where our 21st century Lincoln is hiding.

    1. 21st Century Lincoln took one look at the likes of David Brooks waiting for him and said “Oh HELL no.”

  16. Being raped is horrible. It is tragic, scarring, and terrifying. Why do some people not want to do anything to decrease the frequency of it happening?

    1. Because it is more important to make everything political and use everything you can to beat your opponents over the head with.

    2. WHY DO YOU OPPOSE SHARK NETS? DO YOU WANT MY CHILDREN EATEN BY SHARKS?

      ALSO, METEORS ARE DANGEROUS = WHY DO OUR SATELLITES NOT HAVE METEOR DEFENSES?!

  17. “It’s not blaming the victim,” she said. “I’m saying everybody has a role here, everybody needs to be responsible.”

    That’s precisely blaming the victim, according to the progs.

  18. Robbie, you’re still falling victim to their game.

    –“Rapists, in fact, are rational actors who want to commit their crimes without a struggle and ensure that they escape punishment. It’s much easier to abuse someone whose state of intoxication has rendered her unable to resist, and it’s much simpler to discredit subsequent accusations if the victim’s memory of the attack is foggy or unreliable.”–

    This is simply untrue.

    Yes, *SOME* rapists are rational actors who will specifically prey on those less capable of resisting. Others however get off on the struggle and violence of the act. An incapacitated or unconscious victim would be of no interest to them. What you are missing however, is that the overwhelming majority of “rapists” don’t actually realize they are committing a crime at the moment they are doing it. Either they convince themselves that she said it was ok or they themselves are so drunk at the time that no real thought is happening behind their actions.

    Even more important than all of that is that for these modern Progressives and Feminists is that in at least a plurality of the cases that they consider to be rape no actual rape occurred and they want to enable a culture where women are absolved of all responsibility for their actions which means that the men must be held accountable for any negative consequences that she faces and so drunk sex needs to become evidence of rape.

  19. John, et al., the difference is that if you leave your car running in a bad part of town and it’s stolen, you do not have in place a culture that tacitly agrees that car theft is just part of life, so buck up and act responsibly. The problem of “victim blaming” isn’t rhetorical, it’s about whether rapists are actually being excused for their actions because of a culture that actually kinda likes the idea of having access to women to fuck more or less against their will and not face any consequences.

    1. I… what?

      1. Forget it. It’s Tony, and Tony is an imbecile.

    2. Re: Tony,

      John, et al., the difference is that if you leave your car running in a bad part of town and it’s stolen, you do not have in place a culture that tacitly agrees that car theft is just part of life, so buck up and act responsibly.

      So it’s OK to lie and defame people. Right?

      The problem of “victim blaming” isn’t rhetorical, it’s about whether rapists are actually being excused for their actions because of a culture that actually kinda likes the idea of having access to women to fuck more

      OK, so it’s ok to lie and defame people, because culture. Right?

    3. “rapists are actually being excused for their actions”

      I know! Seriously. I mean, Hillary has been covering for the guy for years.

      I mean, there are just so many Rapists being celebrated daily in our “culture”. its amazing.

    4. Who the fuck excuses rape? Seriously, what world do you live in? If anything it is the other way around. You leave your car unlocked in a bad neighborhood, lots of people will say you had it coming if it gets stolen. A lot of people do just accept that car theft is a part of life. A whole lot more than accept the same for rape.

    5. “The problem of “victim blaming” isn’t rhetorical, it’s about whether rapists are actually being excused for their actions because of a culture that actually kinda likes the idea of having access to women to fuck more or less against their will and not face any consequences.”

      And they’re not being excused, in fact rapists are about the most maligned segment of the population; any sample modern popular culture will show you even murder is more forgivable than rape.

      “you do not have in place a culture that tacitly agrees that car theft is just part of life, so buck up and act responsibly.”
      Yes, that is exactly the culture we have in place genius. Did you not read the comment? If you leave your car running in a bad neighborhood, it is tacitly accepted that it may reasonably expected to get stolen, and that you are an idiot for putting yourself in that position. Do you even read your own comments? When in recent memory has a rapist gotten an acquittal or a lighter sentence or the sympathy of the public because he committed his rape in a bad neighborhood late at night instead of in broad day-light in the suburbs? Preventative caution does not imply mitigation of blame on the part of perpetrator; never has; feminists are idiots for not understanding that.

      1. The fact is, ‘victim-blaming’ is par for the course with every other type of crime; it is accepted that bad people exist. Only with rape (or sex crimes committed by men against women) is an exception called for. What concerns me is that progressive retards like Ezra Klein seriously believe that no right is so sacred, no measure too extreme, if it helps prevent a single rape. Some people seriously think we should go full 1984 to ‘solve the problem of rape.’

  20. The problem of “victim blaming” isn’t rhetorical, it’s about whether rapists are actually being excused for their actions because of a culture that actually kinda likes the idea of having access to women to fuck more or less against their will and not face any consequences.

    The world inside your head is an ugly, depressing place.

    1. The world is an ugly, depressing place, it’s just that some of us don’t take our narrow, white, male perspective and experience and assume everyone else is getting the same deal.

      1. Your constant refrain about the shittyness of the white-male perspective is fascinating, white man.

      2. Re: Tony,

        it’s just that some of us don’t take our narrow, white, male perspective and experience and assume everyone else is getting the same deal.

        What’s funny is that you assume you have a perspective.

      3. Nope, you have a different narrow, deluded perspective. And good luck with that.

      4. I don’t have a white male perspective dipshit. I have my own individual perspecitve, one at odds with that of many white males, yourself included.

        Get this through your dense fucking head Tony: People are not their race+gender+class or whatever. So stop being such a racist, sexist piece of donkey shit and start worrying about the actual content of the perspective rather than the fucking wrapping paper, and maybe someday you won’t be such a cunt hair.

        Seriously, you’re like a fucking caricature. You’d probably defend creationism if I told you white males were less likely to believe in it than black females. Get a fucking grip on reality buddy.

      5. No, apparently some of you make your perspectives more interesting by lying. Neat.

      6. So before you said that you absolutely oppose anyone saying they can see things from someone else’s perspective, yet now you say that all white males have the same views on things and that we are all assholes.

        Goddamn you are one of the most hypocritical pieces of shit I have ever known to exist.

        As someone has already stated, people are not their race, sex, and bank account you slimy, waste of fucking oxygen.

        Damn your parents for ever cursing the rest of us with such a waste of a human being.

  21. But all too often, purported anti-rape activists refuse to admit that alcohol is a significant aggravating factor in the campus rape crisis.

    That’s because they checked their privilege and blaming alcohol is the same as blaming the victim because… culture.

  22. the problem is that teens are bad drinkers who put themselves in unsafe situations?and will continue to do so, until federal policy changes.

    If there is one thing alcohol does is lower drinkers’ inhibitions. At that point, judgment gets impaired and men and women do not think of the consequences of their actions until much later. Monday-morning regrets may be more at play than a pervasive rape-culture that the feminists made up to obfuscate the issue.

  23. one Canadian college, Medill University

    I couldn’t find such college in Canada; the closest is Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University (in IL). What gives? Maybe McGill?

    1. Yeah, I assumed that the original report was heard rather than read, and the word “McGill” was mis-heard as “Medill.”

      McGill’s also in Montreal, where the “drinking culture” tends to be a bit more French than elsewhere, and thus (somewhat) more restrained. My French cousins in Normandy really do drink Merlot and talk about post-modernism! — but only when they aren’t bitching about their taxes and the shitty employment situation for their kids.

      1. “bitching about their taxes and the shitty employment situation for their kids.” My suspicion is the postmodernism might have something to do with those.

        1. Certainly a possibility (one which they are keenly aware of, BTW…)

  24. The difference between a man and a feminist on this issue is that, as a man, I wouldn’t get upset if someone told me to use caution and be alert if I was walking home from, let’s say, a baseball game through a bad neighborhood. If I was walking home from said ballgame and I had a few (or more) drinks, and I got robbed, it wouldn’t have been my fault, but if I was sober, and not an easy target, the result might have different. That is not victim blaming to point that out.
    If a woman goes to a party and is responsible, doesn’t get blackout drunk, then she has a better chance at not getting into bad situations.
    I personally think that alot of times, consent may have been given (although drunk consent), but if you can void out the drunken consent of the female, then you can also void out the drunken persuasion of the male. It has to be equal.

    1. I bet real feminists take that advice just fine when actually in a situation like that.

  25. I remember in the late 1970’s when there was movement to up the drinking age to 21. The oft mentioned justification was ‘it will prevent drunk driving deaths’. I worked with a college administrator who quipped, ‘then why don’t you raise the driving age instead?’ Which is really at the core of this – control by other means. We don’t want to prevent sexual violence we want to have a good enough excuse to convince ourselves that we did all we could and the problem is some nefarious ‘other’ who must be crushed with the full fury of The State.

  26. There is no statute of limitations on foolishness. Lower t o18? Go back to the 70’s when it was reality. One weekend of partying at Michigan State. 1 dead and 1 near death due to alcohol poisoning.

    Like your contention that rape is tied to drunkiness, so too is binging tied to adolescence. Libertarians fatal flaw is it does not learn from experience.

    1. So how many die or nearly die now that the age is 21? Well if the article and its sources are to be believe, and I have no reason not to at this point, then it is more — http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro…..-to-worse/

  27. This article triggered me!

  28. That would be McGill University in Montreal – Medill’s at Northwestern.

  29. Or, and here’s a crazy idea, women actually like sex. However, when sober, they feel like sluts. So they get drunk to suppress that feeling, bang some random, and then sober up, when that feeling returns.

    So the White Knighting of helpless drunk women is actually thwarting their intent, like all paternalism.

    This is a radical idea as it requires thinking women might like sex, I know, but just consider it, Robby.

  30. Anyone who wants to drink when at college will do so, either by having someone else buy it for them or by getting a fake ID. It takes the event outside the mainstream and sets the stage for naive young girls with no alcohol experience to get into bad situations.

  31. OT but kinda related:

    I have begun to be interested in making my own wine. I’m making my first batch now and all I’ve done is add water, cut strawberries, yeast, and sugar in a gallon jug and am letting it ferment.

    It’s been fermenting for 3 days now and I tasted it and it has an overpowering yeast taste to it.

    Need some guidance here

    Any help is appreciated.

  32. “Can We Be Honest About Rape and Alcohol?”

    *We* can, but that was never in doubt.

    But the Progressive Theocracy is entirely indifferent to truth, and merely acts to gain power. Don’t ever count on honesty out of them. It’s a concept that simply does not compute for them. There is only power, and what you can do to get it.

  33. You are always allowed to alter the color of your character’s armour or clothes. Just Press the H on he keyboard to show up the hero screen and click on the buy rs gold.

  34. up to I looked at the bank draft which said $7831 , I accept that…my… friends brother woz truly erning money part-time on their apple laptop. . there uncles cousin has done this less than six months and recently paid for the dept on there villa and purchased a great Ford Mustang .

    over at this website………. http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  35. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  36. FAIR WARNING: I am a 62-year old grandmother (and long time supporter of libertarian causes) who has told both my children (male and female) that getting drunk is not a good idea – and that getting very drunk will leave you vulnerable to other people’s aggressive impulses – and will continue to give that information to my grandchildren as they become old enough to hear about such things.

    HOWEVER, if “society” ever refuses to punish someone who rapes a drunken offspring of mine, then I will remove the “manhood” of such a transgressor myself – and without anesthetic.

    One person’s vulnerability – even when “freely chosen” – is not an excuse for another person to violate rights. (getting drunk does not mean “she/he was just asking for it.”

  37. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  38. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.