The Salon Death March continues.

August 22, 2001 8:06 AM

The Salon Death March continues. I personally thought the nadir was the cover story last week featuring a photographer reminiscing about almost nailing Marylin (not work-safe), but no...now Salon has dared to crawl into the underbelly of this country and expose the horror of...hippie parents. Good to see the most high-profile online magazine tackling these hard-hitting issues. How's that stock price doing again?
posted by solistrato (65 comments total)

Ken Layne posted a pretty good savaging of Salon recently
posted by owillis at 8:22 AM on August 22, 2001

iHe planned to get Marilyn drunk and coax her to drop her clothes and then ... He wanted to make love with her

am I the only one that realizes that is rape?
posted by mcsweetie at 8:44 AM on August 22, 2001

mcsweetie: if getting a girl drunk and then having sex was rape i think a lot of people would be in big trouble.

BTW, is anyone paying for a salon subscription? is it really worth it?
posted by suprfli at 8:50 AM on August 22, 2001

Once the website starts asking for money, especially for the sexy content, then you know they are
headed straight to heck!


mcsweetie -- i'm no expert in the criminal mind but rapists rarely "coax"
posted by brucec at 8:51 AM on August 22, 2001

How can someone give consent when they're drunk?
posted by gleemax at 8:54 AM on August 22, 2001

Tom Tomorrow on Mondays and Tom the Dancing Bug on Thursdays. The only worthwhile content Salon has.
posted by straight at 8:59 AM on August 22, 2001

Don't forget Horowitz and Paglia! But otherwise, a shithole. A shame, too, they used to be very good.
posted by UncleFes at 9:07 AM on August 22, 2001

How can someone give consent when they're drunk?

I was always told that no one will *really* do anything when drunk that they wouldn't do sober if they believed they wouldn't be caught.
posted by UncleFes at 9:09 AM on August 22, 2001

mcsweetie:

> am I the only one that realizes that is rape?

Yes.


gleemax :

> How can someone give consent when they're drunk?

People are expected to behave responsibly, drunk or sober. Otherwise "I couldn't help myself, I was drunk" would be a valid defence against a charge of DUI. But it isn't.

If you don't want some sleazeball getting in your pants while you're drunk, don't get drunk with sleazeballs. If somebody slips you a date-rape drug without your knowledge, that's criminal. If somebody buys you six margaritas with your knowledge, and you chug 'em voluntarily and then do something while lubricated that you regret the next morning, learn a lesson and shut up about it.
posted by jfuller at 9:15 AM on August 22, 2001

To stay on topic (i.e. "Why Salon sucks so bad", NOT "What is rape and what isn't"): the Monroe story wasn't that great, but, you know, it's August, nothing really special happens, after the staff cuts Salon is a pretty small outfit so, you do your best but you can't always win. Anyway, solistrato, Bert Stern is not just "a photographer", he's pretty famous and pretty good, too.
But I agree that the hippie parents stuff was very very lame
posted by matteo at 9:22 AM on August 22, 2001

Lame or not, this thread reeks of a Simpsons-esque "Worst Article Ever" mentality.

I'm just thrilled that Salon, unlike every other news media outlet, isn't devoting front page space to "counting down to Condit."

I thought the article was well-written, if perhaps a little sad. I guess I'm going to have to throw away any ideas I had of giving my kids weed for their birthdays.

Damn.
posted by liquidgnome at 9:30 AM on August 22, 2001

i'm no expert in the criminal mind but rapists rarely "coax"

It's still considered rape if coercion is involved. This is a common date rape scenario.

If you don't want some sleazeball getting in your pants while you're drunk, don't get drunk with sleazeballs.

There are "nice" guys whose MO is plying a woman with drinks to get laid. And in cases like that, if a woman doesn't feel as though she's in a vulnerable position to begin with, I don't understand how she's any less of a victim than a woman who was date raped while sober. Obviously, it varies from case to case, but there's such a thing as railroading someone into saying yes, and it's a lot easier to do when a woman's drunk.

learn a lesson and shut up about it.

Yeah, and how 'bout those women who go out all tarted up and then act all whiny when they're raped? What's up with that?
posted by cowboy_sally at 9:36 AM on August 22, 2001

::new poster apologizes for attempted thread derail::

sorry about that.
posted by cowboy_sally at 9:39 AM on August 22, 2001

Oh, mcsweetie -- what a lot of idiots these guys are. Good for you.

Look, guys? Suprfli? If you get drunk and pass out in the park and someone takes your wallet, were you really robbed or not? Or even if you're just too drunk to put up a fight, if you saw the guy again next day would you try to prosecute him? Better hope you don't get a judge that shares your views on personal responsibility of the victim as a criminal defense.
posted by jfwlucy at 9:44 AM on August 22, 2001

Is it just my imagination, or were MeFi's vacation and Salon's vacation a little too conveniently timed to coincide?

And no one has yet mentioned that Salon is now charging $10 per month for their Table Talk community...another sure sign of impending demise. Other sites are actively courting the disaffected TT'ers....I wonder if any of 'em are among us here even as we speak...
posted by briank at 9:45 AM on August 22, 2001

(you can now resume your topic drift)
posted by briank at 9:47 AM on August 22, 2001

actually, most state laws do classify sex with a drunk person as rape because the drunk person is unable to give consent. so yeah, getting someone drunk with the intent to coerce them into having sex is rape by legal definition. of course, plenty of people get drunk and have sex because they want to, but they're not the ones pressing charges (usually, but thats a whole different topic.)

as for salon, I haven't read it in over six months and I don't miss it at all.
posted by rabi at 9:47 AM on August 22, 2001

Otherwise "I couldn't help myself, I was drunk" would be a valid defence against a charge of DUI.

(Sorry to revisit.)

It's not a valid defense, but in Georgia, it's grounds to charge someone with rape. According to Georgia law, a woman loses the ability to consent after having more than one drink. So if a person has sex with a woman who has had two drinks -- s/he has raped her because the woman could not legally give consent.
posted by jennak at 9:48 AM on August 22, 2001

Which points out the difficulty of pinning this subject down.

Do any of really want everyone who ever had sex with another person after 2 drinks prosecuted for rape?

< stepping off of soapbox before big rant escapes... >
posted by Irontom at 9:57 AM on August 22, 2001

I wouldn't mind the subscription model if they would just label the front page headlines with an indicator -- the premium "star" or something -- that showed which articles required a subscription and which were free. As it is, I click on a headline, read the first paragraph, and then hit the subscription wall, and I think, forget it. Set expectations clearly and people will respond; try and "trick" them into paying money and they -- or I at least -- get disgusted.

If I saw a home page with lots of articles I wanted to read, marked as subscription-only, I would consider subscribing.
posted by precipice at 10:04 AM on August 22, 2001

precipice -- it's simple, anything that might have boobies in it is a "premium" article, Marilyn Monroe notwithstanding.
posted by briank at 10:12 AM on August 22, 2001

The only reason I check Salon out anymore is for Lynda Barry. There's certainly not nearly enough of her marvelous funky stuff there for my rabid liking, but I'll take what I can get.
posted by kittyb at 10:17 AM on August 22, 2001

Forgot about Lynda Barry, she's good. No Paglia? Dammit. Anyone know where she now posts her columns, if at all?

If I'm drunk enough to take a nap in the park, the last thing I'm going to be worried about is who hawked my wallet. Take some personal responsibility, ladies - if you give it up for an ugly guy because you were crocked, don't cry rape; it demeans the charge for those are actually raped.

That said, rape should be a capital crime.
posted by UncleFes at 10:30 AM on August 22, 2001

when one schemes to lower a woman's judgemental capacity for carnal purposes, I would feel safe in calling that rape. legal considerations aside.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:30 AM on August 22, 2001

Convictions regarding a conscious but drunk woman says yes (or even doesn't say "no" to sex, or otherwise resist), and later alleges rape later, are incredibly rare.

In most alcohol-involved date rape prosecutions, the woman either (a) said no and/or resisted and was disregarded by the perpetrator or (b) was unconscious or was extraordinarily impaired -- not two drinks, but more like ten -- and that impairment is testified to by other witnesses.

Police frequently don't act on complaints where a woman won't swear to having said "no" or resisted, prosecutors are very reluctant to bring amibuous rape charges, and juries are very reluctant to convict. Many prosecutors will tell you without photographic evidence of forcible rape and unsuccessful resistance (bruising, lacerations) rape convictions are quite hard to obtain.

So, bottom line -- not a crying need for rape reform, certainly not in the direction favoring the accused.
posted by MattD at 10:31 AM on August 22, 2001

there's such a thing as railroading someone into saying yes

Just as no means no, a yes is still a yes.
posted by rushmc at 10:35 AM on August 22, 2001

First the hard hitting 'cam girl' story, and now this.

Just die, please die.
posted by justgary at 10:50 AM on August 22, 2001

Just as no means no, a yes is still a yes.

and there's silence, which is neither, but is far too often taken to mean yes...
posted by rabi at 10:56 AM on August 22, 2001

I wonder what their CEO is still doing there. How much money do you have to loose before you resign? I think that he is so far up to $50 million.
posted by Atom Heart Mother at 11:01 AM on August 22, 2001

I'm sorry, if that description of Georgia law is accurate, the USA has gone to hell. If I sleep with a woman and she can prove she had more than two drinks (what, no BAC requirement?), I go to jail? What if *I* had more than two drinks? Don't I get a break because of MY impaired ability to think clearly?

Actually, this post stands up quite well to deletion of all but the last sentence. But seriously folks, when did we drop the requirement that the woman object or the man use force?
posted by luser at 11:12 AM on August 22, 2001

In germany, as I was told in my orientation classes, anyone who has more than three drinks can no longer legally give consent and it becomes rape. What I always wondered was, if two drunk people have sex, did they rape each other?
posted by Apoch at 11:28 AM on August 22, 2001

when one schemes to lower a woman's judgemental capacity for carnal purposes

That pretty much sums up what I was doing the entire time I was in high school. So I'm a rapist now? Jeez. Does it matter that the schemes failed miserably most of the time?

Does anyone just have sex anymore? And if they do, does Salon do mediocre writeups on it?

Jesus Christ, did I just agree with Fes?

Once you started drinking, it was only a matter of time :D
posted by UncleFes at 12:11 PM on August 22, 2001

Wow.. using that definition I was date raped by last girlfriend a few weeks ago... maybe I should press charges
posted by tj at 12:11 PM on August 22, 2001

Indeed, I think I was too. Let's start a support group.
posted by Hackworth at 12:29 PM on August 22, 2001

*looks around*

What the hell happened to this thread? It went from Salon.com to cheat-beating assertions about rape? Someone get the lasso to pull this topic back on course!
posted by solistrato at 12:35 PM on August 22, 2001

And if they do, does Salon do mediocre writeups on it?

Well, I'm doing MY part to stay on topic! :)
posted by UncleFes at 12:38 PM on August 22, 2001

To the person who loves Lynda Barry, you can find her stuff at NYPress, though considering how much their comics is always in a roil, I don't know how long she'll be there. Still, I think NYPress is going to be around longer than Salon...
posted by meep at 1:40 PM on August 22, 2001

Does anyone just have sex anymore?

Sure they do. And then there is rape--which is violence. A completely different act altogether.
posted by brittney at 2:00 PM on August 22, 2001

That pretty much sums up what I was doing the entire time I was in high school. So I'm a rapist now?

if you intended to get a girl drunk so you could have sex with her, yes.

Does it matter that the schemes failed miserably most of the time?

no, it just means that your tactlessness eclipses even inebriation.
posted by mcsweetie at 2:32 PM on August 22, 2001

Other sites are actively courting the disaffected TT'ers....I wonder if any of 'em are among us here even as we speak...

Some of us have been here for quite a while. Table Talk is truly a wonderful community, and it's sad to see the shake-up it's gone through, but a few of us are sticking to it for a while, re-configuring things a little and it seems to be working. Even if it's just dancing on the deck of the Titanic, we're gonna keep the party going to the bitter end.
posted by dnash at 2:37 PM on August 22, 2001

Rape is rape when the intent is there, and the intent was to get this woman drunk and then have sex with her, so it is rape.

Really, no woman (or man) would want to endure a rape trial, with all it's concomitant slandering of the victim's character, if they had not really been raped. Which is why actual the actual cases of rapes that are reported represent just the tip of the iceberg. While there are exceptions against the rule in every area of the law 99.9 % of rape cases are assiduously researched.

Yup, back to the Salon bashing. This time, now, really.
posted by lucien at 3:10 PM on August 22, 2001

lucien, tell that to Mark Chmura.

And let me know if chiming in and then trying to force a subject change so you get the last word ever works.
posted by NortonDC at 4:07 PM on August 22, 2001

Actually, this is a pretty cool thread. Two topics, both intelligently discussed, both supported by a similar number of posts. Not topic drift, necessarily, more like "Topic Intertwine". The "Double Helix Theory of Metafilter" if you will. Not that this is "The Way Things Should Be" but it's a nice example of "The Way things Sometimes Can Be". Damn, lotta quotation marks up there.

That said, I'll now retire drunkenly to the park, giving no thought to the Salon article, my wallet or my virtue, for all are equally worthless.
posted by Optamystic at 4:13 PM on August 22, 2001

So, in terms of content, are there any sites these days that are like "the Salon of old" ? I used to enjoy Salon, but now I can't find anything comparable.
posted by j at 4:54 PM on August 22, 2001

I'm slightly confused. Every Friday night it is my intention to. if lucky find a girl that is suitably drunk and if not get one drunk.

This is fucking stupid. Christ I have woken up with a few horror stories because of alcohol, but at least I have the decency to take responsibility for my actions.
posted by Atom Heart Mother at 5:16 PM on August 22, 2001

j: I used to read Salon for the political coverage. Now, instead, I tend to visit:

• Talking Points Memo
• The Washington Post's On Politics
• Kausfiles
• Andrew Sullivan
• and the Slate Politics Roundup Page

I liked Jake Trapper, though ...

And I cast one more vote for "If you consent to drink, you cannot then turn around and claim that actions taken while drunk were 'not consensual'" If someone physically coerces you to have sex while drunk that is rape, yes. But if you purposely make yourself stupid and then behave stupidly, you should, in a perfect would, have no one to blame but yourself.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 5:25 PM on August 22, 2001

Hello, my name is Option1 and I'm a rapist........according to some definitions here.

Firstly, getting drunk, passing out in the park and having my wallet stolen would make the person who stole it a criminal. Robbery is robbery. Same as just because I forgot to lock the front door doesn't give anyone the right to come in and take my stuff.

However, getting someone else drunk and seducing them is just that - seduction. It's not rape, except in Georgia, but I think there it's still legal to sleep with your sister.

I seriously do not care if you had too much to drunk and I suddenly looked better to you than I actually am (think old Heiniken ad). If the effect of the alcohol meant you wanted to sleep with me all I can say is.....YIPPEEEE. (Although, my wife might not say the same thing, so let's think in past tense.)

The point is you wanted to sleep with me your state of intoxication is fairly irrelevant. If you didn't want to sleep with me then I'm sorry, but I don't think that being drunk would have made you want to. Being sober might have stopped you being so daring or adventurous or silly, but that's about all.

I didn't force you to drink, I didn't force you to say yes - well other than the force of my inordinate charms and incredible good looks. This is an entirely different scenario from Rohypnol (?sp) or any other date-rape drug.

Seriously, some of you need to get a grip on life. People do drink and in some case that's how they meet their life-partner. In fact, it's probably how most people have met their life-partner. In the end it takes two to tango - both people have to find each other desirable enough on a few levels to want to have sex with each other, and here's the point, irrespective of the level of sobriety.

Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting that I've only ever tried to seduce (or been seduced by) drunk women. Some sober ones have been silly enough to think I looked attractive enough to spend time with. Mind you, their seeing-eye dogs took some convincing.

And to keep this on topic, I'm trying to submit this story to Salon, but it wants to charge me $10 to email them.
posted by Option1 at 7:53 PM on August 22, 2001

"And let me know if chiming in and then trying to force a subject change so you get the last word ever works."

Actually I was joking when I wrote "Yup, back to the Salon bashing. This time, now, really." But assuming you are serious; does the "last word" really have that much value? Perhaps I don't see the inherent value that you seem to ascribe to it. To me, having the "last word" is proof positive that your post hasn't been read/has been ignored.

"...tell that to Mark Chmura."

Actually I'm sure that Mark Chmura is aware of the statistics, and already is showing at least a public regret for his actions. I hope he's sincere. Here was have the introduction of a somewhat different element, which is the abuse of power.

I'm glad you commented. Bringing up high profile cases is fine, but hardly supports one's view overall nor does it contain statistical truths. As I already stated, there is no area of the law that contains absolutes. The number of high-profile cases of people who were wrongly accused of rape is far, far less than is the number of rape cases that go unreported or where charges aren't pressed because of the simple fact that a rape trial is so stressful to the victim as to be commonly described as the experience of "being raped twice" Once by the perpetrator of the crime, and then again by the court system.

Even should they go to trial, by far the greater number of rape cases go unreported in the mainstream media. This is because rape is so common that it is hardly signifies as "news" However wrongful accusations of rape that are successfully brought to trial are so infrequent that they are inevitably thought of as news. So yes it does happen, but rather infrequently, more so in fact, than in any other echelon of the law. Unfortunately given the public perception of such cases, the end result is that a lot more women are afraid of being called "a liar" for reporting having been raped, than are cases of wrongful rape lessened in their number or effect.

Yes drink can impair one's ability to choose, however there is no ambiguity in this story. There is a clear admission that the person in question sought to "planned to get Marilyn drunk and coax her to drop her clothes and then ... He wanted to make love with her.."

If you proscribe to the argument that all people have responsibilities to behave properly even when drunk (although this is a grey area, there are degrees of drunkenness, and not every crime is equal in effect) then why then must you not also concede that people have a responsibility not to get drunk to the degree that they cannot even know that the person who didn't want to sleep with them whilst sober, is going to be all that happy about doing so whilst being even less in control of their faculties? Are you saying that men have no control over their sexual impulses? That their being drunk is an excuse for not taking responsibility for your actions? Being drunk isn't an excuse in DUI incidences, so why should it be so in an incidence of sex without consent?

As a matter of fact, it is nearly impossible to prove a rape case where both people involved were drunk, and they are rarely brought to trial. You need witnesses both to the extent of inebriation of the victim and the intent of the accused.
posted by lucien at 8:25 PM on August 22, 2001

I regret writing "behave properly even when drunk" I would rather have written "Take responsiblity for what one does whilst drunk"

Almost forgot, back to the "real" topic now.
posted by lucien at 8:30 PM on August 22, 2001

Really, no woman (or man) would want to endure a rape trial, with all it's concomitant slandering of the victim's character, if they had not really been raped.

This is an absolute, unqualified statement allowing for no exceptions. I pointed to a very strong case for an exception, which you have not refuted.

While there are exceptions against the rule in every area of the law 99.9 % of rape cases are assiduously researched.

This sounds to me like a statement about the behavior of the police and DA, not the accuser, and therefore does not constitute a qualification placed upon the above-quoted text.

I'm starting to question the whole notion of consent in sexual relations. Where did this legal prerequisite of consent come from? It seems to spring from the belief that by default sex is a criminal assault. I reject that notion. If one rejects the notion that the default condition of a sexual encounter is a criminal assault, then the need for consent to magically transform it evaporates.

After a grueling 20 seconds of mildly focused attention, it seems that the role of law in this should be limited to ensuring the opportunity to object. And drunks can object. So can depressed people. So can high people. So can star-struck people. Unconcious people can not.
posted by NortonDC at 9:19 PM on August 22, 2001

a lot of you seem to be getting up in arms over something that you think I've said, but you've only decided to hear half of the actual statement.

what I said was, if you get someone drunk with the conscious intent to make that someone more likely to have sex with you and the succeed, then that is rape to me.

if two previously unaffiliated people get drunk from their own devices and then meet and have sex, that is not rape to me.

I am not saying that sleeping with a drunk person is rape. but if that person is drunk because you had planned for them to be so prior to meeting up with them, then that is rape.

please try to fully read and understand a statement before you retort.

It's not rape, except in Georgia, but I think there it's still legal to sleep with your sister.

as a citizen of georgia, and a generally well informed person, I can tell you that incest is illegal, punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:37 PM on August 22, 2001

as a citizen of georgia, and a generally well informed person, I can tell you that incest is illegal, punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison

As a citizen of the world and a informed generalizer of well-people, I can inform you that my statement was a rather obvious attempt at humor.

what I said was, if you get someone drunk with the conscious intent to make that someone more likely to have sex with you and the succeed, then that is rape to me.

Why or how is that rape? They still retained their right to say no - to both the sex and the alcohol.

Using your logic, if I meet someone and decide I'd like to sleep with them and use what little charm I have to achieve that aim then that is rape as well. I'm sorry, but you are being way too precious about what constitutes rape.
posted by Option1 at 11:36 PM on August 22, 2001

All of this is ignoring the important topic: where is Camille Paglia writing, if she's not at Salon?

And it does relate to this discussion, as she has much to say about date rape, and the drunken sex in particular.

Also interesting, if you read Dante's Inferno, you'll see a Circle of "Panderers and Seducers", which really meant "Pimps and Rapists". So I just want to indicate the historical coupling (=snort=) of seduction and rape. I'm all for seduction, if it's not fraudulent or overpowering. Still, there's not nearly enough seduction in the world.
posted by meep at 3:40 AM on August 23, 2001

Paglia has taken the summer off of posting the past few years, and her last (er, most recent) posting indicated that she was taking her traditional summer haitus and would see us in September.
posted by fragile at 7:18 AM on August 23, 2001

OH-kay, one more comment -- taking the central issue back out of the world of sex and thereby I hope, gaining some perspective. Option1 -- yes, you have agreed with my point -- if a woman is drunk to the point of inability or unconsciousness and you take her wallet or anything else, you have committed a crime, regardless of whether you helped her get drunk or not. By God, I hope everyone commenting here at least agrees with that.

Now for someone who is NOT dead drunk. Legally, if you & I are negotiating a business contract, and you inadvertently drink too much (new type of cocktail, conviviality, etc.), and I persuade you to sign a contract, next morning you have every right to contest that contract and to not consider yourself bound by it. Contracts are meant to be an equal "meeting of the minds" and if one person can prove that he or she was not competent, temporarily or otherwise at the time of the agreement, that person is not held responsible. Clearly the law accepts that to persuade someone who is incapacitated to do something they do not want to is wrong.

I think though a lot of guys here are getting in a tizzy over feeling that they do not want to be called rapists if they have a few beers and hookup with someone one night. I don't think anyone would disagree with this. GUYS, MOST OF YOU ARE FINE AND NOT BEING ATTACKED HERE. There is a DISTINCT DIFFERENCE, though, between heavy flirting with some guy when you both have a buzz on, and being held up against the wall in a bar and kissed aggressively when you are barely able to stand up, even though you are turning your head away and kicking the guy in the shins. I've been in both of these situations, and the fact that some guys cannot tell the difference between them is all the justification that is needed to have laws that spell out what rape is and isn't.
posted by jfwlucy at 7:25 AM on August 23, 2001

This has got to be the most schizophrenic thread I've seen on MeFi in a long time.
posted by briank at 7:46 AM on August 23, 2001

The bit about contracts concerns civil law. No one goes to jail. Different standards are called for when considering criminal law.

And I say that attempting to injure some while being physically restrained would constitute expressing an objection, so that example doesn't seem inconsistent with what I said.
posted by NortonDC at 7:48 AM on August 23, 2001

briank: espescially if you look at the source! Cripes, it's markup, text, markup,text. Make up your mind, matt!
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:28 AM on August 23, 2001

As a citizen of the world and a informed generalizer of well-people, I can inform you that my statement was a rather obvious attempt at humor.

that doesn't make it right.

Why or how is that rape? They still retained their right to say no - to both the sex and the alcohol.

yes, one retains the right to say no to alcohol, but if someone is intoxicated, a state in which their perception and judgemental abilities are highly diminished, then there is no guarentee that sex would either be accepted or sincerely condoned.

and before all this, if you thought to yourself, "so-and-so is really hot, I'll get them drunk and try to sleep with them." then that would be rape (and I reiterate here that these are by my standards and not necessarily the reflection of some legal doctrine). conspiring to get someone drunk is not much different than tying someone's hands together, or blindfolding them.

Using your logic, if I meet someone and decide I'd like to sleep with them and use what little charm I have to achieve that aim then that is rape as well.

uh, nope. seduction and deliberate incapacitation are two different things.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:20 AM on August 23, 2001

mcsweetie you need to get out more. For a start almost no one can get anyone else drunk. Beyond that, I'll just shake my head in bemused wonderment and await the return of the chastity belt.
posted by Option1 at 3:03 AM on August 24, 2001

yes, one retains the right to say no to alcohol, but if someone is intoxicated, a state in which their perception and judgemental abilities are highly diminished, then there is no guarentee that sex would either be accepted or sincerely condoned.

Something like very similar to this happened to my flatmate, he liked girl A, but she liked boy A and girl B was giving her best shot to snag boy A as well. After quite a few drinks [there where about 8-10 of us in total], girl A, started to flurt with said flatmate to get boy A jealous, flatmate took these advances seriously and they both retired to his room soon after.

The next day however was a complete nightmare, I had friends calling the house claiming that said flatmate had "raped" girl A, and wanted to know what happened and why I didn't do anything to stop it.
What could I say, I nor the 6 other people in the house at the time heard any screaming or shouting from his room, she started hitting on him in the first place and willingly went with him, [it wasn't like there was any pressure to go with him and I was surpised she did] and she was fine when I spoke to her as she was leaving the house a few hours later.

Now mcsweetie was she raped? Or did she get in over her head and cried foul when things didn't turn out the way she thought they would and the next day regret not being responsible for her actions and blaming the alcohol?
posted by X-00 at 4:57 AM on August 24, 2001

I think the girl you describe - and mcsweetie maybe a little - is confusing "regrettable sex" with "rape." Regrettable sex? Not pretty the morning after, not altogether superduper for one's self-esteem, often not very good, but not a crime. Rape? Very much a crime, and one that should be punished far more severely imo than it is now.
posted by UncleFes at 8:07 AM on August 24, 2001

mcsweetie you need to get out more. For a start almost no one can get anyone else drunk.

if you say so.

Now mcsweetie was she raped? Or did she get in over her head and cried foul when things didn't turn out the way she thought they would and the next day regret not being responsible for her actions and blaming the alcohol?

I dunno.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:43 AM on August 24, 2001