Well, the avuncular Dr. Phil has found himself enmeshed in the quite the controversy, following his Twitter question about whether or not having sex while drunk is okay.
The Professional Victim Brigade ™ and Purveyors of Rape Culture and Other Guaranteed Snake Oil Cures ™ were all over him, demonstrating their outstanding grasp of logic, rhetoric and just straight up mastery of the English language by interpreting Dr. Phil’s question as IS IT OKAY TO RAPE WOMEN? Which is obviously the same thing as asking whether having sex while drunk is okay.
Alcohol + Sex = Rape
Oh, I suppose this is when I should mention that it’s only rape if the WOMAN is drunk. Men can’t get drunk, so obviously, they can’t be raped. Wait, no. That’s wrong. Men can’t get erect when they’re drunk and if they CAN, then obviously, they totally wanted it! No rape! Actually that might be wrong, too. Men can’t escape their legal responsibilities no matter how drunk they are, so they can’t be raped. Crap. I’m not sure how it’s supposed to work, but just go with me on this one.
It’s only rape if SHE is drunk.
Let’s try an analogy to sort this out.
Yoo hoo! Lost Sailor! Where are you? Come and play for a second.
So me and Lost Sailor decide to hit up a vineyard for some wine-tasting. It’s out of the way, we’re driving and we both plan on sampling a whole lot of grape!
The Cab-Sav is okay. Maybe a bit too much like jam and not enough like blood. The Merlot is much better. Oooh, look. 18 varieties of Merlot! We’ll try them all!
By the time the Shiraz is down and the Zin is beckoning, we are both well and truly trashed. And having a great time! It’s what we went there to do, for god’s sake! The whole point of wine-tasting is to taste wine!
Now Lost Sailor decides we are just crazy to pass up on watching the sunset at that sweet little look-out spot we cruised by on our way up to the vineyard. I enthusiastically agree! So we both stagger to the car, and off we go!
Oh dear.
Lost Sailor is fucked. He has no defense. He was drunk, he willingly got behind the wheel of the car and he made the decision to put it in gear and drive. He will now own those decisions. He’s up on a drunk driving charge.
But wait! What about meeeeeeee? I hurt my foot and broke a nail. It could have been much worse. I want Lost Sailor charged with attempted murder. I was way too drunk to understand that A) Lost Sailor was drunk, too; and B) I was way too drunk to consent to riding in a car with a drunk driver.
He could have killed me! He almost did! By the very act of driving, no matter how enthusiastic I was about the sunset, he ATTEMPTED TO KILL ME.
He needs to be held responsible for that. It’s not a crime for me to sit in the passenger seat. What crime have I committed? I went to a wine-tasting. No crime there. I had a LOT of wine. No crime there. I wanted to see the sunset. Still no crime. I got in the car. I even PUT MY SEATBELT on. Not even the hint of a crime.
But he crashed the car, fucked up my manicure and endangered my precious life.
Attempted murder. Along with the drunk driving charge.
This is essentially the argument Rape Culture Vultures are making when they insist that drunk women cannot consent to sex, and that no matter how enthusiastically they participated at the moment, they cannot be held responsible for their decisions.
The men most certainly will be NO MATTER HOW DRUNK THEY HAPPEN TO BE. Drive a car while drunk? You will face the consequences. Get in a stupid fist fight while drunk? You will face the consequences. Forget to pay for your bar tab because you are drunk? You will face the consequences. Have sex with an equally drunk woman? You will face the consequences. You will accept all the responsibility for your OWN actions, and for hers as well.
This is what I mean when I say Rape Culture infantilizes women. The idea that women cannot consent to sex while drunk robs them of agency, responsibility, accountability and obviously, equal treatment before the law.
Can we make a distinction between drunk and totally obliterated? That’s almost too stupid to even address. Comatose is fairly easy to distinguish from silly, dancing drunk girl. No one gets to have sex with people who are passed out. The only people who actually need to be informed of that don’t give a shit. Why not? Because they’re RAPISTS. There aren’t a whole lot of them, but you can bet your ass they don’t give a shit what the rules are. Not caring about the rules is what makes them CRIMINALS.
Campaigns to inform the sweeping majority of men who are NOT RAPISTS that they should remember not to rape anybody are insulting, degrading and calculated to inspire fear from women and self-loathing from men.
http://judgybitch.com/2013/07/11/dont-be-that-guy-lets-talk-about-those-rape-posters/
Dr.Phil has a legitimate question: is it okay to have sex with a girl who is drunk?
Define drunk, first of all.
Is it okay to drive a car while drunk? The answer to that requires a LEGAL definition of drunk. The mere fact that you have consumed alcohol does NOT mean you can’t drive. The amount of alcohol in your bloodstream determines whether you can drive or not. So sometimes, YES, you can drive a car while drunk.
Can you have sex with a girl when she is drunk?
Under the law, actually, you can’t. Drunk women are children, remember, and cannot consent, no matter how enthusiastic they are at the time. They can charge you with rape. The courts are curiously reluctant to CONVICT men based only on an allegation, and still seem to think that whole “presumption of innocence” thing is important.
But it doesn’t matter. Just a CHARGE is enough to destroy a man.
If we treated women like grown-ups, capable of making decisions and facing the repercussions, no matter how distasteful and unpleasant they may be, the answer to Dr.Phil’s question would be pretty straight forward.
Is it okay to have sex with a drunk girl?
Is she into it?
Is she receptive to your advances?
Is she making her own advances?
Is she taking off her clothes?
Is she taking off your clothes?
Is she an adult capable of deciding where, when and with whom she would like to have sex?
Party on, young ‘uns!
Just remember, while sex is great good fun, if she ends up pregnant, you are the one who will be fucked.
Condoms, lads. Use them. And bring your own!
Lots of love,
JB
judgybitch 
Ballpark. Out of.
LikeLike
This reminds me of an advice column by Emily Yoffe (Dear Prudence) last year:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2012/07/dear_prudie_is_drunken_sex_with_my_husband_a_form_of_abuse_.html
Feminists did not approve:
http://feministing.com/2013/01/07/dear-prudence-how-should-i-respond-to-your-rape-denialism/
LikeLike
Re rape and presumption of innocence:
Rape always sparks a rollicking debate in CrimLaw classes because it’s the closest thing to a strict liability offense in criminal justice.
LikeLike
The missing piece is an alcohol ban, the issue that really kicked off the women’s movement in the first place. Now we know that alcohol also causes breast cancer! It’s a misconception that because Prohibition failed the first time it will fail again–law enforcement has expanded greatly to keep the country safe, and the American people are much more civilized after casting off childish notions of so-called “freedom”. Progressively increasing taxes on alcohol will make the transition smoother, as well as provide critical funding for children.
LikeLike
Are drunk women unable give consent just for sex, or is the argument that they are generally unable to make informed decisions at all? If it’s the former, you’d need to explain what’s so damn particular about sex, and if it’s the former, shouldn’t we then require that the moment a woman gets drunk, she’d be immediately restrained and promptly given back to whoever is legally responsible for her (husband, father, brother)? Shouldn’t these legal guardians prevent women from going out and getting drunk in the first place? Oh wait…
LikeLike
Feminism Inc needs to continually reframe so it can continually garner large sums of tax dollars to support itself.
The current reframe is “rape culture”.Despite the proven fact that rape (and all violent crime) has drop every year since the late 90s and is at a 60+ year low . Lets ignore that because just like the prison lobby, without a boogie man the $$$ dries up.
The goal is to get to the point where the definition of rape has been so broadened that any woman can claim any sexual act as assault if they so desire. It harkens back to some of the most radical early feminist thinking that any and all hetrosexual intercourse is rape as women, being so oppressed by the patriarchy, do not really have the ability to consent at any time.
I find the whole thing quite fascinating. Feminists, who purport to be all about empowering women, tend to be the ones who want to also have women treated before the law as if they had no agency.
They use Reductio ad absurdum to try and equate raping an obviously passed out and unresponsive person to having consensual relations with your spouse/significant other or even a hook up when you have had a couple drinks.
What it does is set a situation where any womyn can accuse any man of rape if she has had so much as a single glass of wine. Talk about setting a table for revenge against an ex (or soon to be ex) or even morning after regret.
Its already easy for women to set the tone for a child custody battle with a completely unfounded domestic violence accusation. Imagine when they can actually have their spouse arrested and prosecuted for rape because one night 5 years ago (no statutory limits on rape/sexual assault) they killed a bottle of bubbly celebrating an anniversary, then had sex.
LikeLike
Actually, I liked the Shiraz much better then the Merlot. Too bad they didn’t have any Malbec. And I really only tapped that tree, nothing serious and it’s not like the nail was that bad, but I’ll spring for a mani-pedi. So we’re even.
I was hoping you were going to take this one on.
Drunk women are children, remember, and cannot consent, no matter how enthusiastic they are at the time.
It’s not that drunk women are children without agency, but that they’re potential victims who can be exploited by the “rape culture” activists and be paraded around for cash and prizes. The objection to Dr. Phil’s tweet, in support of an upcoming show on rape, was that by including the hashtag #teensaccused, it violated the first law of feminist framing: only the “victims” matter, their claims should be unthinkingly and unhesitatingly believed, and the men shouldn’t be considered at all because they’re just “rapists” and let’s just lock ’em up without all that “trial” and “evidence” business.
Here’s part of an piece interviewing someone named Carmen Rios, who has the whole thing worked out:
See? If you give any concern at all to the rights of men accused of rape, you completely “invalidate” a “victim’s experience,” you heartless bastard. There’s an “epidemc” of Rapey McRape rapists out there, a veritable plague of locusts on the land, so thick that they blot out the sun. And because they’re men, we can dismiss them (except to condemn them as evil rapeyists). The most important thing is to find out what support and resources aren’t
finding their way into the pockets of feministsbeing given to the poor victims.Accusation is the new conviction.
When it comes to feminism, like any good con or scam, you just have to follow the money…
Oh, and next time, I’m hiring a limo.
LikeLike
The important issue here is not whether the girl is actually drunk, but does she regret the sex afterwards. Because if she does, she can simply claim to have been drunk and there is no proof otherwise as blood alcohol levels were not measured during intercourse (may something to add to the next great sex toy).
The point is to hold men accountable for regret, not rape. Regret now equals rape. So if your boyfriend you thought was going to marry you dumps you because you’re a complaining bitch, get revenge, say you were drunk and cry rape.
After all, Men are responsible for providing for you in the most perfect way, and if they don’t, well, they need to go to prison for disappointing you.
LikeLike
That’s a pretty appalling initial letter. The woman’s husband, back when they first met six years prior tried to have sex with her in the middle of the night (she even removed her panties for him), but then decided she wasn’t into it and convinced him that he had tried to rape her (he even wanted to turn himself in). Yet, they married. Now, after a night of wine-tasting (sound familiar?) they started making out in bed and, presumably but she doesn’t actually say so, had sex, but she “only remembered half of it” the next morning. And her question? Should this incident be cause for her to divorce her kind, supportive, funny, generous, smart, and loving husband.
And of course “prudence” got it wrong: Yes she should divorce him. Set him free from a live of serfdom. He might yet grow a spine and set of balls, but anything would be better than being married to this idiot. (Not the way the feminists put it, of course, but same result.)
LikeLike
Are you sure you’re not a man disguised as a woman? just kidding…you’re GREAT!
LikeLike
Seems funny in a time when the U.S. govt. is trying to figure out ways to lighten the load on our overburdened prison system the feminazi hamsters are working overtime to advocate for more prisoners. Seems also interesting that our population of feminist indoctrinated women have to anesthetize themselves with vats of booze to indulge in their precious hook up culture, yet all drunken sex is rape? How about these little snowflakes that head of to the bar dressed like a $2 whore and get drunk for the sole purpose of chasing cock? No word about that from the feminist camp. No end in sight to feminist idiotic bullshittery, and they become more infuriating by the day. How about advocating some self-agency, some self-responsibility, and some self-accountability? Nope not in the victim driven feminist mind, drink up, slut it up, and if you don’t like the end result then pick and choose whose life you want to destroy. Have I ever had drunk sex? Hell yes many times with women I was in very close relationships with. When I and my ex-wife were still close we spent many nights together enjoying a beer/wine buzz and romping till sun up. She would even joke with me by telling me that if she passes out, just keep going she’ll catch up with me sooner or later. If feminist victimologist shitheads want to call that rape then they can fuck themselves with a hand grenade! I have often read where feminist demanded the govt. stay out of their bedrooms and yet want the govt. to use tax payer’s money to fund their birth control and abortions. Well fuck you feminists, how about you keep your asses out of other people’s sex lives and stop being a waste of tax revenue! Forget it feminuts, you can’t grow a dick, you can only strap on a fake one, maybe you can get your Wall Street banker overlords to provide one for you, and it is not your job to control and police every cock on the planet to suit your Marxist utopian ideals. Feminism has become nothing more than rape of our culture!
LikeLike
I think I love you…But seriously, you hit it head on brilliantly.
LikeLike
Ah, the Communist Broadcasting Corp is calling Dr Phil’s tweet a “Rape Tweet”. You can always count on our state broadcaster to tow the marxist/feminist line.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/08/21/ns-dr-phil-rape-tweet-rehtaeh-parsons.html
LikeLike
You can’t be serious.
LikeLike
The feminists obviously don’t understand what dr Phil was doing there: trying to start a discussion. Feminists don’t like discussions, they like dictating what people ought to believe and enforcing it with police power if necessary. And they aren’t crazy about men saying anything at all, which is another possible outcome of Phil’s question.
LikeLike
Denial of female agency: perhaps you’d expound on this. Who does the denying, and why. I’d guess that it’s legislators, unwittingly or otherwise, who do the denying; as to why, I’m not sure if it’s deliberate, thoughtlessness, or paternalism. Thoughts?
LikeLike
If a woman masturbates while drunk, is she guilty of raping herself?
LikeLike
That makes it even more interesting considering it was in reference to a show regarding Rehtaeh Parson. Her parents will never admit that according to independent witnesses, her daughter was having coherent, consensual group sex. That her own testimony was inconsistent and changed numerous times and only became “assault” after other girls in her class started shaming her.
LikeLike
The trouble is, even if we could magically flip a switch and start holding women as fully accountable for their actions as we do men, it would likely destroy society.
I had a terrible thought the other day, one I didn’t want to agree with for the longest time. But damnit, my imagination is too insistent and will not be ignored, so I thought about it. And in my drive-home inner-mind workings, I concluded that…
Men and Women should have entirely separate legal systems.
Mind you, it wasn’t a hard conclusion, I did no research to back it up. It just struck me that the system of laws and governance was created by men. It was idealized to be based on the presentation of objective evidence and a burden of proof that rests on the prosecution of the crime/injustice.
But women don’t think/operate this way. Justice to a man is often not considered justice to women. In fact, I’ve not met many women who reasonably grasp how justice is supposed to work in the developed world, which leads me to conclude that women simply do not value the basics of the legal system. They all seem to just want to convict anyone accused of heinous deeds. I have never, in my life, heard any woman acknowledge and apologize for their own false accusation on anyone. I’ve seen many men admit error and try to make amends for making false accusations against other people. But I have *never* seen a woman go back on an accusation. I’ve always felt that once a woman imagines someone as guilty, that’s it, no re-assessing of the situation happens.
Has this topic been covered in the manosphere somewhere?
LikeLike
Lol!
LikeLike
I off to invent the first dildo with integrated breathalyzer. It won’t vibrate until you can prove you are sober.
LikeLike
So what are women really expecting. After all, women drink at social occasions. Do women really want all the men to run away for their own protection once the first glass of wine is poured? I don’t carry a breathalyzer. I have no idea how drunk you are. Are you really wanting me to treat you like a child? Is that where this is going? Because I’m not likely to hand over the reigns of power to a child.
LikeLike
Anyone out there who ever carried a “don’t rape” placard/chanted such a ridiculous opinion is a retard. Newsflash, imbeciles, the law in the sane and civilised world is very clear that non-consensual sex is a very serious offence. I have no idea if you cretins have worked this one out, but RAPISTS DON’T RAPE BECAUSE THEY FORGOT OR WERE NEVER TOLD NOT TO!!! They know the law, rapists are lowest in the food chain in prisons, being convicted of rape or sexual assault has a heavier stigma than murder, they just don’t care. Yet you duhbrains have the lack of intelligence to pretend that your screwed up fantasies are real?
You can accuse MRAs of being closet homosexuals if that turns you on (cracked.com’s delightful Winston Rowntree) but I’ll go out on a limb and say that all male feminists are much more likely to be rapists and paedophiles (Kyle Payne) and female feminists are power hungry morons who denigrate women and fantasise about rape while protesting against it (Sandra Bernhardt). Feminism ain’t about equality. should be, but is not. It’s hypocrisy at its finest.
“What kind of society has to remind people not to rape?” – Ricky Gervais.
LikeLike
Well, I don’t know.
Lately, naps and spankings have been things I look forward to!
😛
LikeLike
“What kind of society has to remind people not to rape?”
A society that changes, broadens the definition of rape while retaining the same punitive value for the term.
LikeLike
I wonder how different the response would have been if the question was: “If someone is drunk, is it ok to have sex with them?’ If the answer is no, almost all these ‘I was drunk, so it was rape’ victims are ALSO rapists. And there is NO backing out of that – well, not if you believe in gender equality. If you both give drunken consent – either you are both rapists AND victims, or neither of you are. Or maybe: ‘If a boy is drunk, is it ok to have sex with him?’ Who thinks THAT would spark outrage, or an actual debate?
LikeLike
“Men and Women should have entirely separate legal systems.”
This has been a feminist goal for decades.
LikeLike
Seems to me they ALREADY have separate legal systems.
Felony? Men get double the prison time and are convicted at double the rates
Child custody? Goes to women
Rape? Women are victims and men are NOT presumed innocent
Legal parental surrender? Women only
Murdering infants? Men get life, women get therapy
Hiring someone to kill your spouse? Men get 20 years, women walk free
I’m sure there’s more….
LikeLike
You know, if all bars had wall-mounted breathalyzers, that could take a lot of the guesswork out of things for men.
“Sure, I will take you back to my place… first, breath into that.”
“What, you popped .021? get lost bitch, I ain’t a rapist.”
LikeLike
@jbfan-
I know a lot of people screen out ‘slippery slope’ arguments, but isn’t the logical conclusion of being accused of rape for any normal sexual encounter, and rapists getting stiffer sentences, worse treatment, and a lowered burden of proof for punishment than murder, simply an encouragement for murder?
I mean, look at it from a criminal’s point of view for a moment. You just had crappy, sloppy sex with a girl who was drunk. She’s screaming at you because she woke up next to a guy that looks like a celebrity… but not Brad Pitt, more like Marlon Brando.
She is a witness, and you are going to go to jail for rape. You are going to be at the bottom of the totem pole socially, and have nearly fifty times the chance of getting murdered by some white knight crusader convict.
If you kill her and hide the body, there’s at least a CHANCE you won’t get caught. If you get caught there’s a CHANCE you won’t be convicted, and if you are convicted there’s a chance you can be out in 5 years or less by claiming it was an accident and you panicked, and murderers are actually at the, or close to, the top of the pecking order in prison.
Bingo, all of a sudden murder is actually the most sensible, logical conclusion. The law of unintended consequences.
LikeLike
You know, how about some major props to Dr. Phil for having the balls to even address such a politically incorrect question. I think it’s proof that society is gradually waking up to the nonsense that the feminists have been shoving down our throats for the last several decades.
The average person with a functioning brain recognizes that this is a complicated issue worthy of intelligent and reasoned discussion. They don’t want to be shouted down by a bunch of man-hating beasts whose position that “drunk sex is male rape in all circumstances” would obviously result in a whole lot less sex and a whole lot more people in jail for rape if ever consistently enforced.
Way to go, Dr. Phil!
LikeLike
So people go out to bars and nightclubs for the good music and over priced beer.
LikeLike
The girl is very drunk, the guy is very drunk… the guy cannot have sex.
LikeLike
And a Islamic goal as well.
Ironic, innit?
LikeLike
Better late than never for Dr. Phil. Personally, I’d rather seek advice from Dr. Leonard Sax.
LikeLike
i’m going with satire on this one
LikeLike
Pope’s law in action here:
Batshit crazy?
Or delicious satire?
LikeLike
2500+ years of legal, moral, and ethical traditions say that if a person is so drunk that they ” perceived not when” they lay down, nor when they get up, then they can not consent to sex. See Gen. 19:32-36
LikeLike
I agree with everything said in this article. If a woman can’t legally consent to sex if she’s drunk, then why can a man? If you want to get technical about it, they both should face charges. Not just the man. This mentality infantizes women.
LikeLike
Why should a man who has not legally committed himself to (legally married) a woman be responsible for what she decides to do with his semen? After all, the biological facts are pretty well known unless she was drunk in biology class. Sperm + vagina = baby if everything is in good order and the tming is right (or wrong depending on the perspective). As long as she consented to receive his semen, or took the chance that the BC method would fail, it isn’t his fault what she (her reproductive system is part of her, not a foreign parasite lodged in her abdomen) decided to do with his semen; whether to reject it or to invite it right on into her inner sanctum.
In former times a man took on the responsibility of caring for and supporting a woman and the children she generated with his sperms by formally and openly marrying her. Unless it became obvious that she was getting help from some other man, her children were presumed her husband’s.
If a woman allowed a man to deposit his semen inside her without benefit of marriage, she was on her own unless it was proven that he forced it on her. Prostitutes and women of low morals did not expect to look to their customers or visitors for aid in raising their bastards.
But this ancient convention has been turned on its head. Women are assured that they are free to f**k around to their hearts’ desire and then if they get knocked up and decide to bear the child, the man can be compelled to support the product of her decision. This is wrong socially because it encourages promiscuous conduct on the part of women. Without such conduct by women, men cannot be promiscuous unless by rape or prostitution. Sure, sure, it IS unfair to women but it’s not men being unfair; it’s natural biology.
LikeLike