Wall Street Journal Columnist Wants Women To Share Some Blame For Sexual Assault

[Capt. Obvious]

....

Working off a piece in the New York Times, Taranto highlighted an incident last year at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where a young man named Matt Martel prevented his intoxicated male friend from sleeping with a drunk female student. The young woman thanked Martel the next day, which apparently left Taranto baffled.

The question arises here: Whom exactly did Martel save from danger? The answer is quite possibly both the young woman and his friend. Had she awakened the next day feeling regretful and violated, she could have brought him up on charges and severely disrupted his life. Both of them were taking foolish risks, and it seems likely that he as well as she had impaired judgment owing to excessive drinking.

Taranto just doesn't think men and women — physical disparities, be damned — should be treated differently in such cases if both parties are drunk.

What is called the problem of "sexual assault" on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike. (Based on our reporting, the same is true in the military, at least in the enlisted and company-grade officer ranks.)
Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

Taranto is a reliable soldier in what he deems the "war on men." He wrote last June that Democrats such as Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) were trying to "criminalize male sexuality" in their efforts to eliminate sexual assault from the military. McCaskill promptly shot back at Taranto's "bizarre and deeply out of touch understanding of sexual assault."

Whut?

[Le Taz Hot]

1. Oy vey!

This is it: A woman should be able to walk around in public, naked and drunk on her ass if she so chooses, WITHOUT BEING HARRASSED.

The End.

[el_bryanto]

11. In fairness if they are walking around naked they probably would be picked up

for public indecency?

Bryant

[MicaelS]

20. No she shouldn't.

Public intoxication is a crime. Drunk people can get hurt, hurt themselves, or hurt others. And DUI can, and should be a felony. You want to get drunk, do it at home, behind closed doors.

Nudity I don't have a problem with.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Methinks you missed the part about

"NOT BEING HARRASSED, 'cause that was, you know, they key point.

I didn't think I needed to specify "sexually harassed" because of the theme of the thread, but just in case I'll amend so it reads, ". . . SHOULD NOT BE SEXUALLY HARRASSED . . . "

For whatever reason, you seem to have injected some sort of advocacy for the behavior on my part. No idea what that's all about.

[aquart]

2. A man of honor does not take advantage of an inebriated lady.

Taranto wishes to be relieved of the duties of honor.

[el_bryanto]

3. Is a drunk guy still a man of honor?

I don't drink, and I've never been drunk, but doesn't drinking lower you inhibitions or something like that? How can you be a man of honor when you've purposefully lowered your inhibitions.

Bryant

[AgingAmerican]

6. Yes

nt

[geek tragedy]

8. being drunk doesn't change who a person is, it just releases the part

they tend to hide when sober.

there's definitely a big difference between an alcohol-induced sloppy hook up and one where one person is being taken advantage of by the other.

[el_bryanto]

10. So people are who they really are when drunk?

I'd probably better continue not drinking then. There are some things man was not meant to know.

Bryant

[geek tragedy]

12. I would say more like it changes which aspects of the personality

come to the fore.

In moderation, not such a bad thing. In excess, rarely ends well.

[11 Bravo]

4. What an asshole! Sexual assault is a SEXUAL ASSAULT problem, NOT an alcohol problem.

I truly do NOT wish for Mr. Taranto to awaken one morning, severely hungover and with a broomstick imbedded in his ass; but he might find the experience instructive.

[geek tragedy]

5. Taranto is a classic Men's Rights rape cheerleader.

Note that he (a) claims the man was equally intoxicated as the woman (story doesn't even say he was intoxicated) and then (b) treats the fact that the woman was so bombed out of her mind she was incapable of giving consent as a "oh well so what"

[yurbud]

7. two different things are going on in that scenario: a woman made a mistake but a man

would have committed a felony.

The first does not in anyway excuse the second.

If someone got carjacked while driving their BMW or mugged for wearing an expensive suit, we would not excuse the criminal because of the temptation the target presented.

[cinnabonbon]

19. +1!

[bemildred]

9. Oy. nt

[joeglow3]

13. This IS a fair point

I had a male friend who passed out drunk in college. A group of friends walked into the room to find that his drunk female date had taken his clothes off and was climbing on top of him.

If both parties are drunk, why is the male guilty and the female the victim?

[el_bryanto]

14. Because the male has power in society.

And females don't.

Bryant

[treestar]

15. in that case, wouldn't the female be guilty?

No one says that it's impossible.

[joeglow3]

16. Based on the responses in this thread, no.

But, lets not make it so obvious (a passed out male). What if both are just shit-faced? Why is the male guilty and the female the victim?

[treestar]

17. If both drunk, probably there is no evidence

She's not going to remember much either. And won't have any evidence other than her word. It's not so easy to prove as some men seem to think it is. Which is why most women in that situation are not going to do anything. Too embarrassing. Yet there are some men out there insisting they are going to be arrested for every drunken bash. I don't see any real evidence for that.

[joeglow3]

18. THAT is the point of this sexist topic

The original piece said if both parties are blitzed, all things being equal, you cannot blame one party more than the other. The talkingpointsmemo piece (that most on here agree with) believe this view is tantamount to saying women should be responsible for sexual assault on them. The basic premise needed in order for that view to be true is that they male sexually assaulted the female when they were both drunk. In short, a bull shit view.

[Rex]

22. The WSJ is a male crap rag.

Is the CEO, XO, EO, VP, chairman of the WSJ a group of men or women? Who does the rag appeal to the most? The WSJ is a male conservatives wet dream of what the world should be like in their own image.

[malthaussen]

23. Well, I'll play advocatus diaboli here, I have enough hearts already.

Weirdly enough, I was thinking about this some days ago.

It's pretty much agreed that an intoxicated person is incapable of consent, yes? Diminished capacity, I think the term is?

Okay, then if intoxication diminishes capacity, how do we reasonably expect an individual of diminished capacity to act lawfully, or even decently?

I've never liked the idea that drunkenness is a mitigating factor in assault, accident, or other damage/infringement. But logically, if the capacity is diminished, how can the responsibility be held to be the same as when undiminished?

It would seem, then, that the flaw lies in willfully diminishing one's capacity and the acts consequent to this. But then one might argue (as Mr Taranto seems to be doing), that the other person in the "collision" who has rendered herself incapable is equally to blame.

The flaw in that reasoning seems to be obvious: the intoxicated victim has initiated no action consequent to the intoxication, whereas the perpetrator has. I may be as drunk as I like, if I don't punch you in the nose. If I do punch you in the nose, I have crossed a line. But if my capacity is diminished, can it be held that I have willfully crossed the line? And thus we come back again to drunkenness being a mitigating factor.

It's annoying, and I still haven't figured out how to resolve it to my satisfaction.

-- Mal

[joeglow3]

24. I followed you until the last paragraph

Why is it assumed only women need to give consent to sex? If both parties are drunk, is the males ability to consent also impaired? You are referring to victim and perpetrator. How do we know which is the victim and which is the perpetrator?

[malthaussen]

27. No such assumption is made.

"victim" and "perpetrator" are not linked to the sex of the individuals involved.

Perhaps you will agree, however, that men rape women far more often then women rape men?

How do we know? Well, isn't that the central question in any case of rape? Granting no outward signs of physical violence?

-- Mal

[joeglow3]

28. I agree, but that is still sexist

To say the burden of proof is on me, the male, to prove that I was also impaired and taken advantage of, when it is just accepted for the female be impaired is sexist.

[DiverDave]

25. I have boys, I tell them that NO means NO

and to NEVER take advantage.
If I had daughters and they were taken advantage of?
There would be some boys in the hospital. Damn the consequences.
I cannot understand why these fucking predators are coddled and sheltered.

[joeglow3]

29. If you had girls, would you tell them NO means NO?

As I have addressed here many times, I had a male friend who said no (he was always petrified of getting a girl pregnant) and later passed out in his study room at his frat. A couple friends walked in the study room and saw that she had stripped him and was climbing on top of him.

I have also known some men who were drunk who had sex with stone cold sober women. Did they rape the men? If roles were reversed, most would assume the men raped the women.

[randome]

26. There is no 'war on men' as this idiot supposes.

But read the comments under the TPM article. Some interesting points are brought up, same as in this thread.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]