26 Comments
More on false sighting of J-school student’s attacker. (Look for a scar on his stomach? Come again?)
On being a “So-and-So Professor of Such-and-Such”
They may cure their own corn beef, but their chicken noodle soup probably won’t cure this
A Central Park Jogger debate-esque opinion piece…except it’s unclear who said this girl was “asking” to be raped in the first place
Sexhibit A: “What does consent look like? What does it sound like? What does it wear on the weekend?”
EDIT: Money for birth control does not grow on trees lining college walk
Loading …
26 Comments
@noooooooooo is no one else really upset that ortho-lo went from being 8 to 30 bucks?? i relied on town and drug for that price.
@Whore! (Unless you need it for zits or chemical castration). But seriously, you can’t shell out $10/month for pills? My uninsured GF spends a $100/a month for hers.
@I think The scary thing for most upstanding young men is the thought that they might be having a great evening with someone who is really into them, but then find themselves accused of something atrocious the next morning after having done nothing wrong. That’s why the quote #9 cited is so bothersome. If a woman claims a drunken man raped her, he has absolutely no way to defend himself.
@you've got it... …backwards. The point is that if you are drunk and get behind the wheel of a car, you are accountable for your actions. The fact that your judgment is impaired is not an excuse. Similarly, if you are drunk and consent to sex, the fact that your judgment is impaired doesn’t absolve you of responsibility for your own choices and make the guy a rapist.
@11 again First of all, it’s R. KELLY, not KELLEY.
The point I am making is that we aren’t talking about children here, we are talking about adults who are responsible for their own welfare. I have often walked my incapacitated friends home after a crazy night, with the realization that Bad Things happen to clearly drunk ladies at night, but that doesn’t mean they should always abdicate their personal responsibility to others when drunk. If you get completely trashed, it’s your fault, and you are responsible for ALL of your actions-including giving consent.
It’s unfair to hand people a blank check when it comes to drunken sexual behavior, in that they can do whatever they want and then blame their partner for violating them if they regret it. People need to take charge for themselves and know the effects of alcohol on their bodies and minds.
@Drunk By that logic it’s okay to drive drunk… drunk drivers are adults. Someone getting behind the wheel drunk is just the same as anyone else. There should be held to the same standard; why would consent not be impared by alcohol?
@Body, Soul, n' Mind Yes, people need to be responsible about their drinking – and that goes for all participants of sexy fun time.
@Column I don’t usually like the give the shitty GS columnist any attention, but his column is particularly obnoxious today.
@Yeah seriously I’m not sure why 30-35+ year olds pretend they’re living the same lives as 17-21 year olds. I don’t act like my life is the same as when I was 10, but his columns are always written like he thinks he’s 19 or he really wishes he was 19.
@He's not that old Closer to 25
@Male One article repeats the ridiculous assertion that this is a poor excuse: “They were both drunk, so really, how can you blame him?”
As a male who would never even contemplate raping someone, I cannot for the life of me understand this presumption. Why is it that, ceteris paribus, when a man and a woman are both so completely wasted that neither is capable of giving consent—when a sexual act occurs—it is the man’s fault? If both partners are truly incapable of “consenting” and yet they have sex anyway, that is not the man’s fault. And while women in general have lower tolerance, there are situations where the man is more drunk. If they have sex, that does not make him guilty of rape.
Going out on a limb, nor does it make the woman guilty of rape either. If two people decide while they’re sober, single, and looking for sex to get drunk together, that’s a form of implied consent. (Narrowly construed, so that either partner could always decline later).
Similarly, while TBTN is an excellent idea, why do we automatically have the assumption that if a woman cannot remember having sex that she must not have consented to it? People blackout all the damn time, and sometimes their partners are drunker than they are.
@Also male Becauz it’s hard for a lady to rape you if you aren’t into it.
Also, if a woman is so upset that she reports a rape after you’ve both blacked out drunk, and your dick is dirty, then you probably did rape her.
Whiskey dick is your friend.
@agree I completely agree with you.
Being drunk does not free you from any responsibility for your actions. No one contests that. If I get smashed and sexually assault an innocent girl on the street, I should pay the full price. This principle carries over into the policy at Columbia, minus one situation: when drunk, a person is not responsible for giving consent. So, when drunk, you are responsible for EVERYTHING you do, EXCEPT you are not expected to be responsible for consenting to sexual relations.
The contradiction leads to the ridiculous situation where two people can get drunk together, consent to sex, and then, in the morning, if one decides that he or she had been raped, they would have a solid case.
People need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions…all of them.
@Unfortunately Sure, there are people who regret hook-ups and maybe overstretch it. But that’s quite a different matter. For instance, there are many times when person X gets particularly drunk because X already knows the person that they are with (person Y) and trusts Y, at least to the extent that Y would recognize if X is blacked out or are almost at the point (maybe conscious but unable to speak, etc.). X may be wrong in assuming that Y would be decent enough to understand that X, in an impaired mental state, may not be able to give their consent. And sure, X is responsible for getting drunk, but Y has a (greater? vital?) responsibility to understand that if X might be fux0red up, then that doesn’t give Y the green light (silence is not automatically compliance). It might be a damn shame to some, but R. Kelley was responsible for knowing if he was going to get nasty with a little kid (or for that matter, a mentally handicapped individual), and the fact that the mental impairment might be caused by X (sweet nectar of the gods), does not mitigate Y’s responsibility in recognizing X’s easily observable mental state.
@Non-algebraic This isn’t the kind of blacking out to which I’m referring. Having sex with anyone who’s incable of speaking is a pretty sketchy thing to do no matter how far you’re gone yourself.
However, alcohol often causes people to lose their ability to recollect an event long before they become physically incapacitated. A person could consent (enthusiastically, even!) to their equally drunk partner, and then have neither of them remember it the following morning. I question whether if one of them decided it was rape but couldn’t remember lack of consent any more than actual consent whether that would really be a strong case.
@Okay I think our claims are not clashing.
What take you to mean:
People often lack personal responsibility when drinking, in that they fail to consider how their own decision-making (and memory) may be effected. People need to account for the consequences that their actions may have upon their own cognitive faculty (e.g., what they might say ‘yes’ to) along with the possible memory loss.
What I hope you take me to mean:
I’m not addressing the possible ‘victim to be’ (or whatever), but the other person involved, who far too often fails to take responsibility for the fact that getting drunk will also impair their own judgement (e.g., understanding barely-conscious head movement as enthusiastic consent). These same people may not account for the consequences of placing themselves in an impaired mental state (or the like). As “sketchy” as it may be, I have found it to exist in the (Columbia?) community surprisingly far too often to suggest an overwhelmingly responsible and thoughtful community.
So I think we’re both pointing to a lack of responsibility, but just in different ways that aren’t really opposed to one another.
@re: birth control so this staff editorial claims that students switching back to their parents health insurance is not an option because then their parents find out about their use of birth control. um, i go to the same GYN as my mother, and my mother pays the insurance. but GUESS WHAT. there are these things called privacy laws, and unless I explicitly tell any doctor to release my information, he/she CANNOT tell my parents. so quit bitching, and be more responsible, both in your research and your sexual escapades
@Not really In high school, my girlfriend and I went to a free clinic for BC — despite repeated requests that they not contact our families (including me taking the chart from their hands, and writing “DO NOT CALL” in red marker), they would frequently call our parents to confirm billing details. Face it, people are morons, no matter how many laws you pass.
@Part of the point is also that, were you to ask your parents to join the family health plan, they might inquire as to why, and you’d be in an awkward spot.
@Also... …I love how the article mentions that an email on how to prevent “push-in attacks” was sent to all Barnard students…ONLY all Barnard students. Yes, I know the man who sent it is the director of BARNARD safety and security, but wait! oh yeah! There are women at COLUMBIA as well, including, um, the one this happened to, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it would probably be just as useful for them to get some kind of email like this. Or is this the only time in history Barnard is deciding to separate itself from Columbia in more than just name?
@Well... …Then maybe your administration should have sent you one. Barnard students don’t get emails from Columbia administration, so stop your bitching…or transfer schools.
@hmm further supporting my claim that barnard is full of cold, spiteful b______
@shut yo' trap Email’s including the one that got sent intially reporting the rape incident get sent to the schools seperately. Barnard recieved the email detailing the incident, much later. Barnard security would have no means of emailing the entire Columbia student body and vice versa.
Relax with the capslock.
@worst op ed ever sorry, maya. the whole thing reaks of cliched lady-anger, and says nothing of what justified such an accusatory tone other than to guilt us into taking back the night.
@oh spec the first article mentions valuable tips about preventing situations like the one the j-school student found herself in. but i guess it was important enough to mention but not actually share any of the prevention tips?
@actuallyt the tips are all listed in the text box on the front page of the spec