The Drunk Sluts Rights Movement

Posted on Comments

Back in August, when I covered “SlutWalk DC,” I observed:

Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does.

Of course, feminists would denounce such a statement of fact as a misogynistic expression of “rape culture,” but facts are facts: Alcohol is a significant contributing factor in the incidence of date rape. Leslie Eastman at College Insurrection remarks, “Never let it be said that outraged campus feminists confuse themselves with common sense,” as she highlights a Washington Post column about a recent uproar:

The message of Emily Yoffe’s Slate article about binge drinking and sexual assault on college campuses was as important as it was obvious: The best step that young women can take to protect themselves is to stop drinking to excess.
Young women everywhere — not to mention their mothers — ought to be thanking Yoffe. Instead, she’s being pilloried.
A “rape denialism manifesto” full of “plain old victim-blaming,” Lori Adelman wrote on the feminist blog Feministing.com. Erin Gloria Ryan, on Jezebel.com, accused Yoffe of “admonishing women for not doing enough to stop their own rapes.”

Read the whole thing. This feminist nonsense is perfectly understandable once you recognize that the whole p0int of endless ranting about the evils of the oppressive patriarchy is to absolve women of responsibility for their own failures. So the coed who starts guzzling tequila at the ATO house and wakes up the next morning sore, sticky and naked, with only vague memories of how she got that way, is not merely a victim of drunken fratboys — and we all know what deviant beasts those ATOs are, right? — but also a victim of all men everywhere throughout the course of human history. Anyone who says otherwise is just a misogynistic slut-shaming bigot.

“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that; no ordinary man could be such a fool,” said the sexist George Orwell.

 

66 comments

  1. Heaven forfend that leftists actually think that things like personal responsibility are important.

  2. And this is why I list myself as among the New Wave Feminists. Since when was constantly being a victim, objectifying yourself*, aping the worst examples that mankind has to offer, and not taking charge of those things you can take charge of “empowerment”?

    It’s these very arguments from fauxminists who have helped lead me to the conclusion that “heteropatriarchy” is actually an externalization of their own neuroses. In short, “heteropatriarchy” is really nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual way of saying “my paranoia”.

    * It always amazes me how NFL cheerleaders are “objectifying” women by wearing what are essentially gymnastics gear but parading around in your undergarments is magically “empowering”.

  3. Ensuring there are plenty of young women available for the pleasures of their male Dem masters, like serial rapist Bill Clinton, is what feministing and there rest of the porno-feminists do in exchange for… for… an illusion of power?
    I’m surprised they don’t just recycle Larry Flynt’s editorials. There’s no subjective difference.

  6. “Feministing.comm.”

    Why do naughty thoughts come to mind when I see that??

    I have always thought that about 99% of “date rape” could be prevented if parents would learn their daughters about this.

    Ladies, don’t put yourself in a position of being impaired around testosterone mushroom clouds,

  7. Reading the comments of many of those sites I’ve come to the conclusion that according to them, the female gender is utterly incapable of taking any steps that decrease the possibility of getting into such a situation where a rape could happen. Rape is a force of nature that nothing can be done to stop, outside of shaming every and all men for rape.

  8. That was the conclusion I drew, as well. Which is yet another reason I’ve concluded that any cries of “heteropatriarcy!!!” are basically announcements to the world that you’re dealing with a paranoid neurotic.

    I don’t think women should be ashamed of their bodies any more than men, and I for one certainly don’t have the body of a Dallas Cowgirl. (Part of that neurosis is thanks to trashy rags like Cosmo. That’s another thing wrong with fauxminists. They’re blaming the wrong people) But I’m comfortable enough in my own skin that I don’t feel intimidated by men admiring said Cowgirl, nor do I feel the need to parade around in lacy underalls for attention.

  10. Back in the days (80s), Cosmo and similar mags went into partnership with Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt. The logic being if men desired a porn starlet, women would flock to magazines telling them how to be such a starlet in the bedroom, in the name of ’empowerment.’
    At the time, Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, James Dobson and the Focus On The Family group, and Phyllis Schlafley presented a different view of feminism – but with a catch: Bible verses that made Man the head of the household.
    The choice was presented as Enslaved Unhuman versus Empowered Woman.
    The empowerment? Since woman must be head of the household, they got rid of the men and replaced them with Government. They dress like sluts, drink heavily and do drugs and put themselves in places no sane man would go, and then complain about the Rape Culture that they created.
    The feminists are circling the drain. If a woman wants to be free, buy a pistol and enough ammo to be proficient.

  11. If two drunk people want to have sex with each other and do have sex with each other then there was no rape. If the female is too drunk to give an ‘informed’ yes then the man is too drunk to know that she can’t give an ‘informed’ yes. No harm no foul.

  13. How did “take responsibility for your own behavior and safety” become the most vile words in the English language?

    We tell people not to drink and drive to avoid consequences. We tell people not to smoke to avoid consequences. We tell people to reduce salt and fat to avoid consequences.

    Somehow, telling women not to get plastered to avoid consequences is wrong?

  14. The problem is that there are two conflicting notions at work:

    1 – People should use common sense to avoid accidents or injuries; and
    2 – Women should be just as free as men to do whatever they want.

    The feminists celebrate that first notion in lots of areas, such as supporting gun control, because, regardless of intentions, the presence of a firearm increases risks.

    But the second outweighs the first, if it can in any way be seen as somehow relegating women to having to do anything that would not be required for a man. Trouble is, what the feminists have a problem with is that women and men are different, different in ways which have social consequences. Women are, in general, smaller and weaker than men, but to take the advice not to get so drunk that they cannot be in control of themselves notes that difference, and that just cannot be.

    Unfortunately for our feminist friends, that males and females are different is not something that they can blame on George Bush or the evil heteropatriarchy; their arguments are with God. For whatever reasons he has, God has not chosen to alter the pattern of his creation to meet the objections of Amanda Marcotte.

  16. But points 1 and 2 are not conflicting.

    Anyone is quite free to ride a skateboard down a handrail. And anyone is quite likely to suffer the consequences when they do so.

    The problem is, increasingly, people forget or ignore the reality that point 2 is incompletely stated in your example.

    Point 2 is not really “Women should be just as free as men to do whatever they want.”

    It is, “Women should be just as free as men to do whatever they want, as long as they are aware of and willing to accept the potential risks and consequences of their choices and actions.”

    And pretending that “feminist” or “progressive” ideology can revoke both risk and consequences is a fatally flawed belief fraught with danger.

  17. Er…the relative attractiveness is not the point. It’s not logical. Its nearly impossible to articulate, but one promotes an activity and gets paid. The other is an act of abdegnation.

    You get to decide which is which.

  18. Alas! I’m sorry, my friend from Auburn, but you have it wrong: I stated Point #2 absolutely correctly from the point of view of the feminists, while you attempted to make it make sense. One would hope that you could see why that is an error.

    The obvious example is abortion: the feminists must support abortion, on demand, at any point in pregnancy, for any reasons, and, they would add, have the government pay for it; that’s the closest that women can come to the consequences of coitus to men.

    Women are, on average, smaller than men, and alcohol does not discriminate based on sex; its effects are primarily due to blood/alcohol level, and a 200 lb male is going to have more blood than a 110 lb female. The liberated women who want to match the men drink-for-drink are going to get drunker, faster, and that’s a consequence which our feminist friends see as simply awful. (They could avoid it by porking up to 200 lb themselves, I suppose, but then they’d have fewer males willing to play the match-drink-for-drink game with them.)

    The feminists will always try to rely on the law and government to try to equalize the consequences which are inherent in nature.

  21. Well said. I totally agree.

    “What few people have analyzed is how much liberals have normalized the worst of sexism in the name of liberation (sexual or for women).”

    A point McCain has also made very nicely.

    http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/miley-cyrus-or-how-much-liberals-have-normalized-the-worst-of-sexism-in-the-name-of-liberation/

    http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/rihanna-repugnant-liberal-parasite-gladly-exploiting-and-degrading-women-following-in-the-footsteps-of-madonna-and-lady-gaga/

  22. In my opinion, there is a lot wrong with non-hetero-liberatocracy.

    There has never been anything wrong with heterosexuality per se, as all these garbage of homosexual activists and liberals claim. So heterosexuality can never be framed as an oppressive system and deforming and perverting it into homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality will never justified.

    The human species is heterosexual and everyone is born heterosexual (unless they have a biological malfunction in terms of intersex – which has nothing to do with having a homosexual problem (a psycho-social-ideological dysfunction)).

    Patriarchy has lots of problems, however, which can be horrendous and very oppressive.

    The challenge is how to fix the problems with patriarchy without creating an equally or even more harmful society – which is what liberals and these porno-feminists have done.

    Porno-feminists are not the only kind of feminists though.

  23. What is sad is that many of these girls have liberal parents. The parents tell them that having sex in their teens is normal: having sex outside marriage (or hookups) is normal: getting plastered is normal; porn is normal; homosexuality is normal.

    The entertainment industry (their culture) tells them the same thing. Their school environment if not formally, often in terms of peer pressure tells them the same thing.

    A kid who has this kind of garbage of parenting and upbringing is going to have what kind of attitudes and views to guide their behavior?

  24. It’s also interesting to note that I never see liberals speaking of these young men rapists (or even older ones) who are perpetrators in date-rapes involving alcohol as evil.

    However, liberals certainly frame the Westboro folks as “evil,” simply because the latter say that “God hates fags.” And this in a world where the Westboro folks don’t go around raping anyone – as far as has been reported at least.

    But in the liberal worldview, which one of the two is evil? The Westboro folks, of course! They impose and demand morality and they state outright what is perverse in terms of sexuality. For a liberal, that is a crime of the most horrible nature.

  26. I disagree: the media were unsparing of the Steubenville, Ohio, football players who raped a semi-c0onscious/ unconscious girl at a party, and while the story hasn’t gotten as much play recently, look for the media to be just as unsparing to the three Naval Academy football players who allegedly raped a semi-conscious Midshipman.

    The odd thing about the Naval Academy case is that the Midshipman was 20 years old, but she was just completely stinking drunk. Maybe civilian colleges don’t care about things like that, but the service academies should. If she is subject to any punishment for underaged drinking, I haven’t seen it in the press.

  27. It raises the question of whether the drunk female raped the drunk male, if he was too intoxicated to legally consent . . .

    Howsomeever, in the cases which are making the national media, the female has been intoxicated to the point of near-incapacitation, while the males were not.

Comments are closed.