Christ on a fruitcake, really? Yes, really. Those are the only logical meanings one can draw from their writer, one James Taranto. According to a recent editorial, if a woman has had a drink or two, she is equally “at fault” for being raped.
You see, to Mr. Taranto, rape isn’t the fault of the rapist. He compares rape to an accident involving two drunken drivers: two people committing equally criminal acts. And this shows what a misogynistic f***wit he is.
Rape is a violent crime, with a perpetrator and a victim. It is not a crime committed by two criminals (like his flawed drunken driving analogy): in the case of rape, the rapist assaults the victim, who either does not consent or is not capable of consenting. The victim is not, repeat NOT committing a criminal act. Having a drink is not a crime.
Mark this well: if someone cannot legally consent, the answer is no. That is common law, understood for business dealings, elections, and other interactions: drunk people cannot legally enter into so much as a car loan or a poker game. And if you steal a drunk’s wallet, you are still a thief. If you break into a drunk’s house and beat the s*** out of them, you are still assaulting them.
But if you rape a drunk, that is somehow different, according to this guy:
Apparently, he does not think sexual assault is a crime. Shoot a drunk, beat a drunk, those are crimes, but if a penis is involved in a violent crime, then it’s somehow OK, right?
Wrong. Just ask the two scumbuckets from Steubenville who are doing time for raping a drunk girl. Ask anyone busted for drugging a girl and then raping her. These. Are. Crimes. Using a penis as a weapon does not excuse the criminal. Getting her drunk first doesn’t either.
The Wall Street Journal apparently thinks otherwise. And hey, a dick wrote that editorial, and bunch of dicks decided to print it, so maybe they are all thinking with the wrong head. But only a person who thinks solely with his dick would say that rape is not a crime.
Mr. Blunt and Cranky
bluntandcranky 
I read the article directly from the BOTW and what has been written isn’t an accurate reflection of what he said.
If a woman doesn’t give consent, that’s not in question. The problem is when the woman gives consent but then later claims she was too drunk to truly do so and claims rape.
In that case if I’m on the jury, and both parties were drunk, the woman being too drunk to truly give consent equals the man being to drunk understand that she was too drunk.
Not Guilty.
Not exactly, Ted. His analogy was of two people each committing a criminal act (drunk driving).
Rape is a criminal act that is not the fault of the victim.
Apples and oranges.
From the WSJ:
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.
As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser’s having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt:
Stanford’s definition of consent to sex imposes a concept that is foreign to most people’s idea of adult consent and inconsistent with California state law. Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs “when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent . . . if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol.” In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault. This is true even if the activity was explicitly agreed to by a person capable of making rational, reasoned decisions, and even if the partners are in an ongoing relationship or marriage.
In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that “if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.” In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.
—–
I can’t argue against that. If one is guilty, so is the other. Making her drunk and thus not responsible, but having him drunk and still responsible, is unfair.
Not Guilty.
Not true. Not all drunken hookups result in rape allegations. And false allegations of rape are easily and frequently disproven in court.
But you and the writer both dodge the attempt to criminalize women for getting drunk and having sex. I call BS on you both.
Diminished capacity is diminished capacity. It either applies to both parties or it’s a miscarriage of justice.
You are leaving out the issue of criminality.
Driving drunk is a crime. Rape is a crime. Having sex while drunk is not a crime.
All three of these are true irrespective of capacity.
And to use a criminal act as analogy for a legal act is weak logic at best, and rape apologism at worst.
That’s not the question. Try and keep up.
If both the man and woman are drunk, can she give consent? It’s a simple yes or no. If she does, can she come back later and claim she was too drunk to truly consent? Yes or no. Because that’s is what is happening, and it’s not fair to the other party. That’s what Toranto is addressing, not whatever crap you’ve dreamed up.
No, it’s not the question. His analogy is using a false comparison: he attempts to say that a criminal act is equivalent to a legal act.
And that is yet another lame way to make rape not a big deal. Maybe you, like the “men’s rights” idiots, are OK with rape, but I am not.
Funny how not raping is the least desirable option for so many dudes.
Then, erring on the side of caution (which also happens to be the non-rapey side), one shouldn’t go about attempting to/bedding drunk women, because consent is questionable at best.
What? Life not being fair, to a man no less. This is completely an issue now. Not the intrinsic rape culture women live in, not the police and court system that are against women, not the fact that most rapists never spend a day in jail. Fuck that shit….
The real problem is men can’t bone women with impunity….that is the real fucking problem.
Consider my commentary informative background information rather than bringing to light to rape apologetics If it makes you feel less offended and feel better about the world, as I am deeply concerned about you feelings.
“Then, erring on the side of caution (which also happens to be the non-rapey side), one shouldn’t go about attempting to/bedding drunk women, because consent is questionable at best.”
I agree.
However, if it does happen and both are drunk, I can’t fault one over the other, and should the woman later claim she was too drunk to truly give consent, then I won’t play favorites. Not Guilty.
It’s really amazing the lengths republican men go to, to defend the concept of rape. This isn’t the only place we’re seeing it (the WSJ article and Ted in comments) … it’s a republican “thing.” Republican public figures have publicly made more jaw-dropping and twisted comments defending rape than you can count both hands. So – they’re fans as far as I can tell – and are trying to convince the world that they shouldn’t be prosecuted for it. Thank god they get called on their BS.